OT: Thank You President Bush

Question:

Many Fear Financial Hit of Gas Prices By Will Lester (Associated Press) The pinch at the pump is starting to feel more like a punch for a growing number of Americans. With gas prices soaring, almost two-thirds of those surveyed for an AP-AOL poll expect fuel costs will cause them financial hardship in coming months. That was sharply higher than in April, when about half felt that way. Crude oil prices reached a record high of more than $66 a barrel Friday. That's almost 50 percent higher than a year ago. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was more than $2.40 per gallon at week's end, compared with $1.86 a year ago and about $2.21 in April, according to the auto club AAA. The poll conducted for The Associated Press and America Online News found that 64 percent say gas prices will cause money problems for them in the next six months, while 35 percent did not think so. In April, 51 percent expressed concerns about the cost of gas. Those most likely to be worried about the financial impact are people with low incomes, the unemployed and minorities. The AP-AOL survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Aug. 9-11 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Response:

As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real reasons for upward prices on gas: Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand will raise its price: 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, reducing supply, raising prices. 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, prices go up. 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that increase price. 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will come back if the profit is great enough. When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car. Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real > reasons for upward prices on gas: > Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > will raise its price: > 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > reducing supply, raising prices. > 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. > Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put > on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, > prices go up. > 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > increase price. > 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will > be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will > increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will > come back if the profit is great enough. > When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you > and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just > not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost > of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car. > Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

I'm sorry, you can't post the truth to AGA. You're fired. Lord Valve Expert

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >reasons for upward prices on gas: >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >will raise its price: >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >reducing supply, raising prices. >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, >prices go up. >3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that >increase price. >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will >come back if the profit is great enough. >When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost >of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car. >Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

Bullshit.  Big oil, backed by Bush and the Saudis wants to fill their private bank accounts on your backs.  And the more bodies expended in Iraq the fewer at home clamoring for jobs that don't exist because they've been parceled out to third world cheap labour pools.  It just makes good economic sense.  Should do wonders for the country's IQ though.  Anyone crazy enough to voluntarily go fight over there wasn't providing figures in the higher end of the spectrum anyway. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Lars GotShanked Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca

Response:

>I've made the same offer many times. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop >the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it.

Please lead by example Pixie. Zitty spews enough crap for everyone in the squad, including the righties.

Response:

> As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?

He's the resident. if it happens on his watch it's his fault (see: Clinton) > Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > will raise its price:

Anything that would decrease the demand (like higher fuel efficiency standards that Bush et al refuse to even think about) would lower the price. > 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > reducing supply, raising prices.

While we in the US go blithely on producing gas guzzlers that eat up gasoline. > 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists.

Nope. It's down to the greedy bastards that run the oil companies that refuse to invest any of their profits (Exxon 2nd quarter 2005 = $7.64 billion, BP 1st half profits = $10.47 billion, Royal Dutch Shell 2nd quarter = $4.63 billion). not because of "environmentalists". > 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up.

Those terrorists being terrorists because of Bush's invasion of Iraq (se above). > 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > increase price.

By "environmentalists" you mean "people that enjoy breathing". > 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price.

The Federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is $0.184 per gallon. If you eliminate that it'll drive the price of a gallon of gas all the way down to.... $2.25 > I'll just buy a regular car.

Let's hope it's an efficient car. > Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > technologies that will power the future

Bullshit. They're making money hand over fist as it is.

Response:

> >I've made the same offer many times. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop >the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it. > Please lead by example

Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it.

Response:

> > >I've made the same offer many times. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > >the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it. > Please lead by example > Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it.

since not everyone agrees, pixies doesn't have to. ergo proctor doctor oh....

Response:

> > Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it. > since not everyone agrees

It ain't gonna happen until there's a consensus on the matter.

Response:

>I'm sorry, you can't post the truth to AGA.

How would you know? The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  

Who's in control of the Iraqi oilfields? Which administration has ties to the oil companies? The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real > reasons for upward prices on gas: > Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > will raise its price: > 1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > reducing supply, raising prices. > 2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. > Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put > on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, > prices go up. > 3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > 4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > increase price. > 5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will > be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will > increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will > come back if the profit is great enough. > When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you > and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just > not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost > of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car.

are you aware that you can get an income tax credit wheh you buy a hybrid? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml Vehicles in the table to the right may be eligible for a "clean fuel" deduction of $2,000 if placed in service by the end of 2005. If you purchased the vehicle before 2005, you can claim the deduction by filing an amended tax return for the tax year in which the vehicle was purchased. For your vehicle to qualify, the following requirements must also be met:  Vehicle Make & Model Model Years Ford Escape Hybrid 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid 2003-2005 Honda Insight 2000-2005 Lexus RX 400h 2006 Toyota Highlander 2006 Toyota Prius 2001-2005 * Vehicles approved by IRS as of June 27, 2005. Other hybrids may be approved at a later date. You must purchase the vehicle new and for your own use, not for resale. You must drive it mostly in the United States. The vehicle must meet all federal and state emissions requirements. Government agencies, tax exempt organizations, and foreign entities are not eligible. Other requirements may also apply. If any of these conditions change within 3 years of purchase, you may have to return some of the money saved by the deduction. > Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

45% isn't enough????

Response:

They are all too small for my family.

Response:

>>>Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop >>the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it. >since not everyone agrees > It ain't gonna happen until there's a consensus on the matter.

Spin, Pixie, Spin! Originally, your Pixie Manifesto stated that you would post your bullshit until LV stopped posting conservative articles. Now you have gotten out your crayon and made the latest modification to the Pixie Manifesto to say, *everyone* (in an alt group!) must stop posting *anything* political, or you will continue posting your bullshit. You keep spinning like this and your 64-pack of Crayolas will be scattered all over the cornfield. Pixie spins like an out-of-balance washing machine...lots of pointless noise coming from a furiously wobbling box in the basement. Get out in that cornfield and chase them crows!

Response:

>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >reasons for upward prices on gas: >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >will raise its price: >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >reducing supply, raising prices.

This is true -- and a free trade ideology that doesn't impose environmental and labor standards on this emerging powerhouse has made this runaway consumption economically viable. >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, >prices go up.

This is a "just in time" inventory strategy that actually reduces costs, and refinery problems were a market factor for decades before it became s.o.p. >3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up.

This is where Dumber'nyuh is culpable -- the Iraq occupation has vastly increased terrorist activity, and increased terrorist activity in a top (#2 in reserves behind Saudi Arabia) oil producer is a major market factor.   The Iraq insurgency could last for decades, so this factor is essentially permanent, thanks to an idiotic U.S. policy. >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that >increase price.

There's been no change in this since the days of cheap gasoline before the Iraq invasion -- iow, it's not a factor in the vast increases since then. >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price.

There have been no tax bumps on gasoline given the above timeline -- iow, taxation is another non- factor in the current situation. >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will >come back if the profit is great enough.

That'd mean a permanent shift to expensive oil. >When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost >of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car.

That's the problem -- we still can buy a brand-new "regular car!"  The oilmen in White House won't even tighten CAFE standards, a measure proven to encourage excellent technical advances in fuel economy.   The automotive industry has proven it can steadily improve gas mileage, but it will only do so with a regulatory gun to its head -- with oilmen in charge in DC, that's not going to happen. >Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will.

Bullshit.  We need a demand side solution, the equivalent of the Apollo program with an ambitious but feasible goal.   That would require the vision of a JFK, not the myopia of a Dumber'nyuh.  The oil industry would rather keep raking in record profits than innovate, and innovation in an extraction industry only serves to further deplete an already dwindling, non- renewable energy resource. We need a two-pronged approach combining mandated fuel economy improvements in the short term and a long-term effort to develop viable alternatives and limit petroleum use to things like lubricants and plastics, not vehicle and power plant fuel.        Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

>They are all too small for my family.

What? Big Macs? Levis? Bic pens? The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >reasons for upward prices on gas: >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >will raise its price: >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >reducing supply, raising prices. > This is true -- and a free > trade ideology that doesn't > impose environmental and > labor standards on this > emerging powerhouse has > made this runaway > consumption economically > viable.

We're supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any standards on them. >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, >prices go up. > This is a "just in time" > inventory strategy that > actually reduces costs, > and refinery problems > were a market factor for > decades before it became > s.o.p.

And its a good procedure IF you have enough refineries to fill in when one goes down.  Right now all the plants are running at 99.9% utilization. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > This is where Dumber'nyuh > is culpable -- the Iraq > occupation has vastly > increased terrorist > activity, and increased > terrorist activity in a > top (#2 in reserves behind > Saudi Arabia) oil producer > is a major market factor. > The Iraq insurgency could > last for decades, so this > factor is essentially > permanent, thanks to an > idiotic U.S. policy.

We have not been attacked since 911 and I give George full credit for that, whatever he is doing is working. >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that >increase price. > There's been no change in > this since the days of > cheap gasoline before the > Iraq invasion -- iow, it's > not a factor in the vast > increases since then.

Yeah, like Ethanol that takes 30% more energy to make than it gives back when you burn it in an engine.  It takes more oil to make Ethanol than it gives back.  Or MTBE which has found its way into groundwater all over Illinois.  I'm in favor of Ethanol because it provides a mrket for Illinois corn and brings a lot of pork barel money to my state, courtesy of our Senator Durbin (democrat).  But I know it's a boondoggle that just wasts more energy than its worth, but I'll take the money.  to manufacture 1 gallon of Ethanol you have to burn 1/3 gallon of oil fuels.  But the environmentalists are still in love with their Ethanol. >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > There have been no tax > bumps on gasoline given > the above timeline -- iow, > taxation is another non- > factor in the current > situation.

Come to Chicago, you dont know what taxes are. >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will >come back if the profit is great enough. > That'd mean a permanent > shift to expensive oil.

Oil will be our transportation energy for at least the next 30 years, get used to it.  An electric motor will NOT haul a load of meat in a reefer across the country, or a load of steel.  The laws of physics will not allow it.  The batteries would weigh more than the load the truck is hauling. Also to make Hydrogen you have to again crack a lot of petroleum to release it's hydrogen or make it. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost >of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car. > That's the problem -- we > still can buy a brand-new > "regular car!"  The > oilmen in White House > won't even tighten CAFE > standards, a measure > proven to encourage > excellent technical > advances in fuel economy. > The automotive industry > has proven it can steadily > improve gas mileage, but > it will only do so with a > regulatory gun to its > head -- with oilmen in > charge in DC, that's not > going to happen.

The market should determine this just fine and much more efficiently than a bunch of attorneys. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will. > Bullshit.  We need a demand > side solution, the equivalent > of the Apollo program with an > ambitious but feasible goal. > That would require the vision > of a JFK, not the myopia of a > Dumber'nyuh.  The oil industry > would rather keep raking in > record profits than innovate, > and innovation in an > extraction industry only > serves to further deplete an > already dwindling, non- > renewable energy resource.

Outside acedemia, the oil companies are the ONLY ones doing R&D on alternative energy that will be viable in the marketplace.  One year ago I invested $100K of my own personal retirement money into oil companies, today that money has grown to $165K, I'm happy.  I am taking a risk in this research with my OWN money, I get the corporate report that has the R&D figures on it.  What risk are YOU taking that will actually DO something?  Other than calling out a herd of lawers to somehow solve a problem.  If all Americans would simply buy big oil stock like me, we would be well onto solving energy problems, technology and free markets solve problems, not politicians, lawers and libs. > We need a two-pronged approach > combining mandated fuel economy > improvements in the short term > and a long-term effort to > develop viable alternatives and > limit petroleum use to things > like lubricants and plastics, > not vehicle and power plant > fuel.

The market will demand the economy, my investment risk in oil compny stocks will solve the viable alternatives.  And I'll make a lot of money to boot. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - >        Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access >              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Get out in that cornfield and chase them crows!

TOP corn producing states are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska,  but mainly Illinois and Iowa. This crop is worth $23 billion annually. Good as gold.

Response:

> > Get out in that cornfield and chase them crows! > TOP corn producing states are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska,  but > mainly Illinois and Iowa. This crop is worth $23 billion annually. > Good as gold.

We have to get our money back from Washington some way, Ethanol is OUR pork no mater how much of an environmental boondoggle it really is.

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> >As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real > >reasons for upward prices on gas: > >Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand > >will raise its price: > >1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, > >reducing supply, raising prices. > This is true -- and a free > trade ideology that doesn't > impose environmental and > labor standards on this > emerging powerhouse has > made this runaway > consumption economically > viable. >We're supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >standards on them.

That's what the W.T.O and the Kyoto process were about -- but a stupid, luddite shift in U.S. policy opted us out of such efforts. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> >2) We have a lack of refining capacity due to environmentalists. > >Reducing supply since finished product is no longer "stocked" it's put > >on wheels or in a pipe and shipped, so when one refinery has a glitch, > >prices go up. > This is a "just in time" > inventory strategy that > actually reduces costs, > and refinery problems > were a market factor for > decades before it became > s.o.p. >And its a good procedure IF you have enough refineries to fill in when >one goes down.  Right now all the plants are running at 99.9% >utilization.

The way to fix that is on the demand side, with conservation and constantly improving vehicle efficiency.  More refineries would be entirely counterproductive because it would encourage consumption, which needs to be reduced. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> >3) Terrorists in middle eastern countries are threatening the supply of > >oil, threat of reducing supply, makes prices go up. > This is where Dumber'nyuh > is culpable -- the Iraq > occupation has vastly > increased terrorist > activity, and increased > terrorist activity in a > top (#2 in reserves behind > Saudi Arabia) oil producer > is a major market factor. > The Iraq insurgency could > last for decades, so this > factor is essentially > permanent, thanks to an > idiotic U.S. policy. >We have not been attacked since 911 and I give George full credit for >that, whatever he is doing is working.

You're as much of an idiot as he is.  What makes you think New York is any safer from terrorism than Madrid or London? - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> >4) The environmentalists have forced producers to use additives that > >increase price. > There's been no change in > this since the days of > cheap gasoline before the > Iraq invasion -- iow, it's > not a factor in the vast > increases since then. >Yeah, like Ethanol that takes 30% more energy to make than it gives >back when you burn it in an engine.  It takes more oil to make Ethanol >than it gives back.  Or MTBE which has found its way into groundwater >all over Illinois.  I'm in favor of Ethanol because it provides a mrket >for Illinois corn and brings a lot of pork barel money to my state, >courtesy of our Senator Durbin (democrat).  But I know it's a >boondoggle that just wasts more energy than its worth, but I'll take >the money.  to manufacture 1 gallon of Ethanol you have to burn 1/3 >gallon of oil fuels.  But the environmentalists are still in love with >their Ethanol.

None of those are factors in the current situation and you know it.  Your attempt to distract from what *is* relevant is duly noted. > >5) Governments are taxing the hell out of gas, increasing price. > There have been no tax > bumps on gasoline given > the above timeline -- iow, > taxation is another non- > factor in the current > situation. >Come to Chicago, you dont know what taxes are.

I'm from New York, and Chicago is East Jesus, Arkansas by comparison.   Don't pull rank on me, son -- you'll lose. Yet another attempt to distraction from what's actually driving the current crisis is noted. > >When the price goes up enough, producers will see a profit and it will > >be worth their while to do some exploration and drilling, this will > >increase supply and reduce prices.  Maybe even the wildcatters will > >come back if the profit is great enough. > That'd mean a permanent > shift to expensive oil. >Oil will be our transportation energy for at least the next 30 years, >get used to it.  

That doesn't mean we can't work our butts off as a nation to use it more efficiently -- and if we had any real leadership in DC that's exactly what we'd have been challenged to do! >An electric motor will NOT haul a load of meat in a >reefer across the country, or a load of steel.  The laws of physics >will not allow it.  The batteries would weigh more than the load the >truck is hauling. Also to make Hydrogen you have to again crack a lot >of petroleum to release it's hydrogen or make it.

I'll settle for the passenger car sector.  Meanwhile, *huge* quanities of exactly the stuff you mention *is* being hauled cross-country by electric motors -- look up "locomotive, diesel."  Economically producing hydrogen and building a safe distribution system is indeed a huge undertaking -- but an America that triumphed on two gigantic fronts in WWII, went to the moon on a short deadline, and reached space via a entirely private development and test effort can and should be the one to do it.  I want that America back from the clutches of the oilmen, who are plainly thrilled with that status quo and couldn't care less about who's hurt by it. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> >When prices go up enough it will become economically reasonable for you > >and me to buy a hybrid, right now the added cost of a hybrid is just > >not worth it, because I can buy 5 years worth of gas for the extra cost > >of that hybrid, I'll just buy a regular car. > That's the problem -- we > still can buy a brand-new > "regular car!"  The > oilmen in White House > won't even tighten CAFE > standards, a measure > proven to encourage > excellent technical > advances in fuel economy. > The automotive industry > has proven it can steadily > improve gas mileage, but > it will only do so with a > regulatory gun to its > head -- with oilmen in > charge in DC, that's not > going to happen. >The market should determine this just fine and much more efficiently >than a bunch of attorneys.

Bullshit and you damned well know it -- you gave a knee jerk ideological response that has no basis in fact.  The market always trails reality and this problem requires getting out ahead of it! - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> >Big oil needs more profit at this time to begin development of the > >technologies that will power the future, nobody else will. > Bullshit.  We need a demand > side solution, the equivalent > of the Apollo program with an > ambitious but feasible goal. > That would require the vision > of a JFK, not the myopia of a > Dumber'nyuh.  The oil industry > would rather keep raking in > record profits than innovate, > and innovation in an > extraction industry only > serves to further deplete an > already dwindling, non- > renewable energy resource. >Outside acedemia, the oil companies are the ONLY ones doing R&D on >alternative energy that will be viable in the marketplace.  

Right, and they can be trusted to drag their cowboy boots until the crisis becomes a total debacle. >One year >ago I invested $100K of my own personal retirement money into oil >companies, today that money has grown to $165K, I'm happy.  

Well, no wonder you have no problem with $3+/gal. gasoline!  You've just disqualified yourself from this discussion -- you're essentially a gambler/vulture raking it in on the suffering of your fellow citizens. >I am taking >a risk in this research with my OWN money, I get the corporate report >that has the R&D figures on it.  

...and of course reports to investors from the oil companies are gospel truth. >What risk are YOU taking that will >actually DO something?  

I work for a living, son.   Gambling favors the house. >Other than calling out a herd of lawers to >somehow solve a problem.  

Historically, thoughtful regulation works -- the right would like to suggest otherwise, but history doesn't lie. >If all Americans would simply buy big oil >stock like me, we would be well onto solving energy problems, >technology and free markets solve problems, not politicians, lawers and >libs.

More bullshit.  American corporations are notorious for shortsightedness -- as per the dealer lots full of gas-gulping SUVs.   Without regulation to prod them, industry almost always takes the short cut to quick profits and neglects the future.  The stock market tries to attract naive get-rich- quick amateur gamblers to the detriment of long-term investing, and this is reflected in our current problem with outdated vehicle techology and dubious, dwindling fossil fuel resources. > We need a two-pronged approach > combining mandated fuel economy > improvements in the short term > and a long-term effort to > develop viable alternatives and > limit petroleum use to things > like lubricants and plastics, > not vehicle and power plant > fuel. >The market will demand the economy,

When the people demand the tightened CAFE standards, progress will start to keep pace with the impending crisis.  The market has tremendous inertia when it comes to big durable goods purchases and there's nothing wrong with the people demanding more progress though their elected representatives.   A gGovernment of, by, and for the people created the legal status of the so- called corporate person, and has the right and duty to regulate its behavior.   Without such restraints, the corporate person is by definition sociopathic, accountable only to the avarice of overpaid executives and ... read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>will raise its price: >>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>This is true -- and a free >>trade ideology that doesn't >>impose environmental and >>labor standards on this >>emerging powerhouse has >>made this runaway >>consumption economically >>viable. >We're supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >standards on them. > That's what the W.T.O and > the Kyoto process were > about -- but a stupid, > luddite shift in U.S. > policy opted us out of > such efforts.

Senate didn't like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution against any treaty that didn't schedule developing nations the same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not be ratified. *That's* why we didn't ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm? Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt...IIRC so was India, because of their 'developing nation' status. If you think that the reason the Senate didn't like this treaty is because they are 'luddite', well, perhaps you should submit that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep.

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->>>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>>will raise its price: >>>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>>This is true -- and a free >>>trade ideology that doesn't >>>impose environmental and >>>labor standards on this >>>emerging powerhouse has >>>made this runaway >>>consumption economically >>>viable. >>We're supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >>country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >>standards on them. > That's what the W.T.O and > the Kyoto process were > about -- but a stupid, > luddite shift in U.S. > policy opted us out of > such efforts. >Senate didn't like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution >against any treaty that didn't schedule developing nations the >same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part >of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic >step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not >be ratified.

It's not a matter of that particular treaty -- it's a matter of ongoing and constructive engagement in the process.  I agree the treaty was flawed -- as Tony Hwang mentioned a few days ago the lack of environmental control in mainland China is becoming regional health concern, with China's neighbors as vulnerable as its own people.  As China's biggest customer, the U.S. has considerable leverage if it stays engaged -- but Dumber'nyuh has disengaged, and his free trader ideology has made our country a vast bazaar for foreign goods which are cheap largely because of the lack of environmental and worker safety reguation while American manufacturing shrivels away. >*That's* why we didn't ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do >you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm?

Again, that particular treaty was just an initial point in the process of protecting the planet while encouraging sustainable economic growth -- what important is not to walk away from the few processes available to influence the Chinese.  One particular document is not the issue, engagement is. >Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact >that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt...IIRC so was >India, because of their 'developing nation' status.

That can certainly be revisited, but only if the U.S. remains engaged.  As stated, the treaty had big flaws, but the process is essential.  It's among the very few available tools for an utterly crucial job that impacts the entire planet. >If you think that the reason the Senate didn't like this treaty >is because they are 'luddite', well, perhaps you should submit >that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, >really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep.

The U.S. Senate is right to be skeptical about that treaty -- but we must also see beyond it, to the world we pass on to children.  A treaty is not an end, it is step, however halthing and imperfect it may be, a step is batter than an unteneable and isolated stasis.        Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

> Already have thanks. If everyone on AGA agrees to stop > the political chit-chat then I'd go along with it.

OT Posts for Aug 7th thru 14th Libs Conservatives Zoot     20 John        2 Bruce     6 SOK66   1 Play-on  3 TPS       2 Timepix  1 Elvis       1 Marc      1 Mike      1 So S/N ratio of OT Posts Liberals 35 vs 3 so it's just over 11 to 1 See ya, John

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->>>>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>>>will raise its price: >>>>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>>>This is true -- and a free >>>>trade ideology that doesn't >>>>impose environmental and >>>>labor standards on this >>>>emerging powerhouse has >>>>made this runaway >>>>consumption economically >>>>viable. >>>We're supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >>>country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >>>standards on them. >>That's what the W.T.O and >>the Kyoto process were >>about -- but a stupid, >>luddite shift in U.S. >>policy opted us out of >>such efforts. >Senate didn't like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution >against any treaty that didn't schedule developing nations the >same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part >of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic >step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not >be ratified. > It's not a matter of that > particular treaty

Until somebody called you on it, it sure as shit was. I see, you have learned the "Pixie Spin Cycle". Well, keep on flopping. >*That's* why we didn't ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do >you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm? > Again, that particular > treaty

It's good to see that you too, were against the Kyoto protocol...it was an unfair, bad treaty, and I'm glad you have finally admitted it. >Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact >that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt...IIRC so was >India, because of their 'developing nation' status. > That can certainly be > revisited,

And it will be, but you don't recognize that treaties like these are used to gain advantage economically...but have the political "Leftist Feel-good quotient" necessary for folks like you to run down the U.S. for not ratifying them, until, of course, you are called on it...then you back off to your fig leaf of philosophical nattering. >If you think that the reason the Senate didn't like this treaty >is because they are 'luddite', well, perhaps you should submit >that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, >really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep. > The U.S. Senate is right to > be skeptical about that > treaty

"Skeptical" *nothing*. The Senate rebuked it, and for good measure, passed a resolution *95-0* that says, effectively, *any* treaty like that will not even be considered.   -- but we must also > see beyond it,

Well all that is fine, but you should take that tack out of the chute, and not say that *because* we did not sign a particular treaty....that had only the image of "feel-good" politics, that the Senate was "luddite", when, in fact, this treaty was *designed* to negatively affect the U.S. economy, above all. Walk, Quack: Duck. Don't underestimate politicians' ability to fool folks like you with the effective equivalent of a Trojan horse. Ask a Senator. Go right ahead and do it. Them's the *facts*, Brucie.

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->>>>>>As if Bush has anything to do with gas prices?  Here are the real >>>>>>reasons for upward prices on gas: >>>>>>Anything that threatens the supply-side of a commodity thats in demand >>>>>>will raise its price: >>>>>>1) We now have China dipping into the supply more that ever before, >>>>>>reducing supply, raising prices. >>>>>This is true -- and a free >>>>>trade ideology that doesn't >>>>>impose environmental and >>>>>labor standards on this >>>>>emerging powerhouse has >>>>>made this runaway >>>>>consumption economically >>>>>viable. >>>>We're supposed to impose something onto China?  They are another >>>>country, they can do what they want we have no right to impose any >>>>standards on them. >>>That's what the W.T.O and >>>the Kyoto process were >>>about -- but a stupid, >>>luddite shift in U.S. >>>policy opted us out of >>>such efforts. >>Senate didn't like the Kyoto protocol. They passed a resolution >>against any treaty that didn't schedule developing nations the >>same as industrialized.  Gore sought political points with part >>of the Democrat base by signing it, Clinton took the pragmatic >>step *not* to submit it for ratification, because it would not >>be ratified. > It's not a matter of that > particular treaty >Until somebody called you on it, it sure as shit was. >I see, you have learned the "Pixie Spin Cycle". >Well, keep on flopping.

I've always had doubts about the Kyoto treaty -- prove otherwise! >>*That's* why we didn't ratify Kyoto. *That* was 1998. How do >>you think the Senate in 2005 views Kyoto?  Hmm? > Again, that particular > treaty >It's good to see that you too, were against the Kyoto >protocol...it was an unfair, bad treaty, and I'm glad >you have finally admitted it.

I've never said otherwise, but, that said, we should have signed it as an interim measure and kept up the pressure for better measures. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->>Among the things I recall that we had gripes with was the fact >>that China (big greenhouse emissions) was exempt...IIRC so was >>India, because of their 'developing nation' status. > That can certainly be > revisited, >And it will be, but you don't recognize that treaties like >these are used to gain advantage economically...but have the >political "Leftist Feel-good quotient" necessary for folks >like you to run down the U.S. for not ratifying them, until, >of course, you are called on it...then you back off to your >fig leaf of philosophical nattering.

I still think we and the world would have been better off if the treaty had been signed -- the economic advantages enjoyed by China are still there without our ratification, but we have essentially opted out of the process and therebye reduced the chances of future agreements would be more advantageous to us.  The constructive paradigm is, "let's take this first, flawed step and stay engaged" and not "I'm picking up my marbles and going home because I didn't immediately get my way." >>If you think that the reason the Senate didn't like this treaty >>is because they are 'luddite', well, perhaps you should submit >>that the Senate should be replaced by a drum circle of, like, >>really cool people who, like, want clean air and, like, a Jeep. > The U.S. Senate is right to > be skeptical about that > treaty >"Skeptical" *nothing*. The Senate rebuked it, and for good measure, >passed a resolution *95-0* that says, effectively, *any* treaty like >that will not even be considered.

They overdid it and did U.S. manufacturing and the jobs it creates no good whatsoever. >  -- but we must also > see beyond it, >Well all that is fine, but you should take that tack out of the >chute, and not say that *because* we did not sign a particular >treaty....that had only the image of "feel-good" politics, that the >Senate was "luddite", when, in fact, this treaty was *designed* to >negatively affect the U.S. economy, above all. Walk, Quack: Duck.

It was (poorly imo) designed to balance the interested of currently-dominant countries with those who want in to the modern, industrialized world -- without U.s. participation, a course correction further on down the line is less likely, and therefore U.S. manufacturing, already bleeding jobs like mad, has no effective advocate in the process. >Don't underestimate politicians' ability to fool folks like >you with the effective equivalent of a Trojan horse. >Ask a Senator. Go right ahead and do it. >Them's the *facts*, Brucie.

       Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response: