|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough is enough. |
25 Apr 2006 12:55:46 PM |
|
|
"Taylor" <123@456.com> wrote in
news:fsq3g.31541$ZB1.29342@tornado.texas.rr.com:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6hcs421t9mkhfp9egr1nqo5ua7mb3roh3q@4ax.com...
From The Detroit Free Press, 4/25/06:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604250337
Consumers' tempers are rising with gas prices
Politicians scrambling for solutions
WASHINGTON --
Frustration with gasoline prices approaching $3 a gallon exploded
Monday in Lansing and Washington as politicians repeated the message
they are hearing from constituents:
Enough is enough.
__________________________________________________________
Republicans and their dunce president prepare to apply political
cosmetics.
Harry
What is it about Supply and Demand that liberals don't understand?
How soon your forget that your hero Bush PROMISED to be a tough guy with
OPEC.
How soon you forget the record breaking profits that Exxon and other oil
companies made last year.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." - Theodore Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sheldon Levine The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough is enough. |
25 Apr 2006 10:48:44 AM |
|
|
What is it about Supply and Demand that liberals don't understand?
When is that Iraqi oil gonna start flowing? I personally paid for a year's
worth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough is enough. |
25 Apr 2006 11:45:40 AM |
|
|
In article <fsq3g.31541$ZB1.29342@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
says...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6hcs421t9mkhfp9egr1nqo5ua7mb3roh3q@4ax.com...
From The Detroit Free Press, 4/25/06:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604250337
Consumers' tempers are rising with gas prices
Politicians scrambling for solutions
WASHINGTON --
Frustration with gasoline prices approaching $3 a gallon exploded
Monday in Lansing and Washington as politicians repeated the message
they are hearing from constituents:
Enough is enough.
__________________________________________________________
Republicans and their dunce president prepare to apply political
cosmetics.
Harry
What is it about Supply and Demand that liberals don't understand?
What is it about the common good and greed that the Repugs don't
understand?
There is no reason why the price of a barrel of oil on the New York
Futures Exchange, where it is indeed an openly arrived at price based on
myriad factors, should be reflected instantly in prices at the pump.
Futures prices reflect future uncertainties and will fluctuate. Pump
prices should reflect the actual cost of the fuel in the tanks. That is
not an uncertainty. It is a known quantity. The oil companies are
gouging, pure and simple.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DKat" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough is enough. |
25 Apr 2006 12:32:51 PM |
|
|
No - what is it about supply and demand that Republicans don't understand!
Corporate Welfare has been refined to an art form by this congress and
administration.
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm
http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html#news
http://www.pirg.org/enviro/pork/links.htm
http://www.progress.org/archive/stadium.htm
These are just a few site shown. Oddly the Right wing for the most part
stopped keeping track of such things once Bush got into office.....
"Taylor" <123@456.com> wrote in message
news:fsq3g.31541$ZB1.29342@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6hcs421t9mkhfp9egr1nqo5ua7mb3roh3q@4ax.com...
From The Detroit Free Press, 4/25/06:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604250337
Consumers' tempers are rising with gas prices
Politicians scrambling for solutions
WASHINGTON --
Frustration with gasoline prices approaching $3 a gallon exploded
Monday in Lansing and Washington as politicians repeated the message
they are hearing from constituents:
Enough is enough.
__________________________________________________________
Republicans and their dunce president prepare to apply political
cosmetics.
Harry
What is it about Supply and Demand that liberals don't understand?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seethis Pass" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough is enough. |
25 Apr 2006 09:49:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:34:51 GMT, "Taylor" <123@456.com> wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6hcs421t9mkhfp9egr1nqo5ua7mb3roh3q@4ax.com...
From The Detroit Free Press, 4/25/06:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604250337
Consumers' tempers are rising with gas prices
Politicians scrambling for solutions
WASHINGTON --
Frustration with gasoline prices approaching $3 a gallon exploded
Monday in Lansing and Washington as politicians repeated the message
they are hearing from constituents:
Enough is enough.
__________________________________________________________
Republicans and their dunce president prepare to apply political
cosmetics.
Harry
What is it about Supply and Demand that liberals don't understand?
The fixing of the supply to increase profit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: DEMOCRATS DELIBERATELY FIX OIL SUPPLY TO UNDERMINE US ECONOMY |
25 Apr 2006 10:02:03 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
The fixing of the supply to increase profit.
Whose fixing supply? Democrats blocked drilling in ANWR, drilling off
the coast of Florida, drilling everywhere.
Let's see Bush have some gonads and re-introduce ANWR drilling, and see
Democrats try to oppose it when oil hits $90/bbl and gas $4/gal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe S." |
|
| Title: Re: DEMOCRATS DELIBERATELY FIX OIL SUPPLY TO UNDERMINE US ECONOMY |
25 Apr 2006 10:19:55 AM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1145977323.619785.92500@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
The fixing of the supply to increase profit.
Whose fixing supply? Democrats blocked drilling in ANWR,
Nope. That was Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Besides, the
little bit of oil in ANWR would provide us with oil for 2 - 4 years. ANWR
is a tiny drop in a big bucket.
drilling off
the coast of Florida,
Jeb Bush blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
drilling everywhere.
Let's see Bush have some gonads and re-introduce ANWR drilling, and see
Democrats try to oppose it when oil hits $90/bbl and gas $4/gal.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
25 Apr 2006 06:26:16 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Nope. That was Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Besides, the
little bit of oil in ANWR would provide us with oil for 2 - 4 years. ANWR
is a tiny drop in a big bucke
Boy, you ***** about telling Bush telling lies, when are you guys going
to start telling the truth?
Maybe a handful of Republicans and ALL the Democrats opposed ANWR.
ANWR is not a "drop in the bucket". ANWR would allow the USA to
replace all the oil it imports from either Saudi Arabia, Venezuala and
Nigeria, or Iran, for roughly a decade. Or, it might help ease the
burdens of energy growth long enough to transition to ethanol. Had we
had ANWR by 2000, we would be getting that oil just about now, and
gasoline would not be $3/gallon.
Democrats always say: "This idea can't work", when they really mean,
"we don't like the environmental impact" Can you not oppose ANWR
solely on the environmental merits without trying to alter or hide the
fact that that oil is worth nearly a trillion dollars?
I would almost be sympathetic to Democrats, if they could ever speak to
any issue without grandstanding like used car salesman, and
demonstrated any sense of intellectual honesty or rationality.
Like today, you had four back to back lies:
1) You had Feinstein rolling out "big oil gouging", but the truth is,
there's just not enough of that black gold and we either have to drill
for more use something else. It's really, really simple: There's 80
million barrels of oil a day being produced world wide, and America
takes half of it, and its just not enough when the rest of the world is
industrializing and needs it too, and it is only going to get, much,
much worse.
2) You had Markey saying that the Energy Bill is the direct cause of
the price runup, which is a total lie. I mean, how did the Bush Energy
Bill incent Chinese to increase their oil consumption by several
million barrels a day?
3) You did not have one senior Democrat come out and admit that had we
drilled for oil, and drilled everywhere, earlier, that, we would not be
in this mess today. Not one.
4) They ***** about high gas prices, when, everyone with half a brain
knows that Democrats want high gas prices to get people to be more fuel
efficient and to reduce greenhouse gasses. In fact, if the oil price
runup causes people to drive 20% less, that would just about get
America to equal the very Kyoto behaviorial targets that the Democrats
wanted us to sign.
It's just morally disgusting. I disagree with Bush on many, many
points, and honesty, I would be a Democrat if the Democrats didn't
suck, but, even if Bush is leading us to Hell, I would rather follow
him to Hell and know that we are going somewhere, when all Democrats
have is demagoguery against a national situation that they themselves
want!
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
25 Apr 2006 07:34:53 PM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1146007576.515527.70200@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
Nope. That was Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Besides, the
little bit of oil in ANWR would provide us with oil for 2 - 4 years.
ANWR
is a tiny drop in a big bucke
Boy, you ***** about telling Bush telling lies, when are you guys going
to start telling the truth?
Maybe a handful of Republicans and ALL the Democrats opposed ANWR.
ANWR is not a "drop in the bucket". ANWR would allow the USA to
replace all the oil it imports from either Saudi Arabia, Venezuala and
Nigeria, or Iran, for roughly a decade.
Simply a lie.
Or, it might help ease the
burdens of energy growth long enough to transition to ethanol. Had we
had ANWR by 2000, we would be getting that oil just about now, and
gasoline would not be $3/gallon.
Simply a lie.
Democrats always say: "This idea can't work", when they really mean,
"we don't like the environmental impact" Can you not oppose ANWR
solely on the environmental merits without trying to alter or hide the
fact that that oil is worth nearly a trillion dollars?
rofl To who? Me? Just so you know, there is NOTHING that will cause that
oil to be used here in the USA.
I would almost be sympathetic to Democrats, if they could ever speak to
any issue without grandstanding like used car salesman, and
demonstrated any sense of intellectual honesty or rationality.
Like today, you had four back to back lies:
1) You had Feinstein rolling out "big oil gouging", but the truth is,
there's just not enough of that black gold and we either have to drill
for more use something else. It's really, really simple: There's 80
million barrels of oil a day being produced world wide, and America
takes half of it, and its just not enough when the rest of the world is
industrializing and needs it too, and it is only going to get, much,
much worse.
How come oil companies refuse to build new refineries?
2) You had Markey saying that the Energy Bill is the direct cause of
the price runup, which is a total lie. I mean, how did the Bush Energy
Bill incent Chinese to increase their oil consumption by several
million barrels a day?
Yeah, that just started last year. lol
3) You did not have one senior Democrat come out and admit that had we
drilled for oil, and drilled everywhere, earlier, that, we would not be
in this mess today. Not one.
Because it's a lie?
4) They ***** about high gas prices, when, everyone with half a brain
knows that Democrats want high gas prices to get people to be more fuel
efficient and to reduce greenhouse gasses. In fact, if the oil price
runup causes people to drive 20% less, that would just about get
America to equal the very Kyoto behaviorial targets that the Democrats
wanted us to sign.
More made-up crazyass republicrap.
It's just morally disgusting.
Then you'll have some cites for us, right, lieboy?
What's morally disgusting is burning 20,000 kids alive for oil profits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
26 Apr 2006 06:44:28 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Simply a lie.
1.5 million barrels a day, even 1 million barrels a day, accomplishes
that.
Simply a lie.
1.5 million barrels a day, even 1 million barrels a day, accomplishes
that. Nigerian troubles, Gulf troubles, represent a shortfall of about
800,000 barrels a day.
Because it's a lie?
Nope, truth. Boy you do live in a weird bubble. It's a lie in your
mind to say that drilling for oil would make prices come down, for as
long as there is oil. And you are saying that Bush lied? Christ, I
bet in your mind only Democrats tell the truth. Do you masturbate when
you genuflect before you statue of Karl Marx.... oh wait, do you
masturbate in front of pictures Nancy Pelosi, or does Barbara Boxer get
you off? Don't you just want to have the concord of communism with
Diane Feinstein and maybe a two on one with Hillary? Do you fantasize
that Hillary screams "Silent Spring! Silent Spring", when she has an
orgasm?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
26 Apr 2006 02:38:00 PM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1146051868.929747.175220@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
Simply a lie.
1.5 million barrels a day, even 1 million barrels a day, accomplishes
that.
Simply a lie.
1.5 million barrels a day, even 1 million barrels a day, accomplishes
that. Nigerian troubles, Gulf troubles, represent a shortfall of about
800,000 barrels a day.
Because it's a lie?
Nope, truth. Boy you do live in a weird bubble. It's a lie in your
mind to say that drilling for oil would make prices come down, for as
long as there is oil. And you are saying that Bush lied? Christ, I
bet in your mind only Democrats tell the truth. Do you masturbate when
you genuflect before you statue of Karl Marx.... oh wait, do you
masturbate in front of pictures Nancy Pelosi, or does Barbara Boxer get
you off? Don't you just want to have the concord of communism with
Diane Feinstein and maybe a two on one with Hillary? Do you fantasize
that Hillary screams "Silent Spring! Silent Spring", when she has an
orgasm?
Lets see, you lied about the democrats blocking drilling of the Florida
coast. Actually Gov. Jeb Bush asked his brother to block that and the
Bushster did. Thats oil right to hand, easy to get and a lot cheaper to
drill for than your obscetion with ANWAR. So why did you lie about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
26 Apr 2006 02:49:54 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Lets see, you lied about the democrats blocking drilling of the >Florida coast. Actually Gov. Jeb Bush asked his brother to block >that and the Bushster did
No lie at all. Brothers Bushed caved after the incessant pressure of
who? Why, would that be the environmental lobby, more often affiliated
with which political party?
Again, just because a Republican administration might cave to the
Environmental movement does not mean the environmentalists endorse the
party of James Watt. They are overwhelmingly Democrats, and Democrats
still are considered more environmentally responsible by the American
people because the American people accept the Democrats message that we
shouldn't drill in ANWR or any other pristine place, because, even
though it would make the price of gas go down in the short haul, it
doesn't solve our long term problem, and thus, isn't worth
irretrievably destroying nature. Heck, I've -bought- into that message,
at times enough to say I'm an ANWR flip flopper.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
25 Apr 2006 09:16:06 PM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1146007576.515527.70200@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
Nope. That was Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Besides, the
little bit of oil in ANWR would provide us with oil for 2 - 4 years.
ANWR
is a tiny drop in a big bucke
Boy, you ***** about telling Bush telling lies, when are you guys going
to start telling the truth?
Maybe a handful of Republicans and ALL the Democrats opposed ANWR.
ANWR is not a "drop in the bucket". ANWR would allow the USA to
replace all the oil it imports from either Saudi Arabia, Venezuala and
Nigeria, or Iran, for roughly a decade. Or, it might help ease the
burdens of energy growth long enough to transition to ethanol. Had we
had ANWR by 2000, we would be getting that oil just about now, and
gasoline would not be $3/gallon.
Wrong. The middle estimate provided by the EIA is that in the 7-10 years it
would take to bring ANWR on line PRODUCTION capacity would be about 5% of
projected US demand.
At that production level ANWR would have an effective lifetime of 20 - 22
years. Towards the end of its production lifetime production would diminish
while demand increases,leading to ANWR providing less than 3% of projected
US demand.
Again, these are estimates. To date no _definitive_ study has been done on
ANWR Estimates are based on a relatively small number of test wells. That is
why estimates vary so widely.
Democrats always say: "This idea can't work", when they really mean,
"we don't like the environmental impact" Can you not oppose ANWR
solely on the environmental merits without trying to alter or hide the
fact that that oil is worth nearly a trillion dollars?
No, democats are saying htat there is a better way
Increasing CAFE standards (as Bush himself is starting to talk about) to 33
MPG in the next 10 years, and including SUVs and light tricks in these
satandards, can be done with current technology. The money Bush wants to
give to major oil and con producers for "alternative energy development"
that is at best 10 years out could be used today to remove most of hte old,
ineficcient clunkers on the road wit new, efficient, clean models _today_.
The result?? Acheiving 33 MPG CAFE would reduce total oil demand for
transportation by more than 25%. Starting tomorrow. Equivalent to all of
the oil we import from the middle east and other areas of conflict. All
ehilr trducing hte vcosts of pollution.
Netter ideas..
Save money.
Improve health.
Reduce infrastructure costs (degradation form SO2)
Essentially for free.
I would almost be sympathetic to Democrats, if they could ever speak to
any issue without grandstanding like used car salesman, and
demonstrated any sense of intellectual honesty or rationality.
Nah. You are following the lead of your surrogate brains.
Larry
Like today, you had four back to back lies:
1) You had Feinstein rolling out "big oil gouging", but the truth is,
there's just not enough of that black gold and we either have to drill
for more use something else. It's really, really simple: There's 80
million barrels of oil a day being produced world wide, and America
takes half of it, and its just not enough when the rest of the world is
industrializing and needs it too, and it is only going to get, much,
much worse.
2) You had Markey saying that the Energy Bill is the direct cause of
the price runup, which is a total lie. I mean, how did the Bush Energy
Bill incent Chinese to increase their oil consumption by several
million barrels a day?
3) You did not have one senior Democrat come out and admit that had we
drilled for oil, and drilled everywhere, earlier, that, we would not be
in this mess today. Not one.
4) They ***** about high gas prices, when, everyone with half a brain
knows that Democrats want high gas prices to get people to be more fuel
efficient and to reduce greenhouse gasses. In fact, if the oil price
runup causes people to drive 20% less, that would just about get
America to equal the very Kyoto behaviorial targets that the Democrats
wanted us to sign.
It's just morally disgusting. I disagree with Bush on many, many
points, and honesty, I would be a Democrat if the Democrats didn't
suck, but, even if Bush is leading us to Hell, I would rather follow
him to Hell and know that we are going somewhere, when all Democrats
have is demagoguery against a national situation that they themselves
want!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
26 Apr 2006 07:01:31 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Increasing CAFE standards (as Bush himself is starting to talk about) to 33
MPG in the next 10 years, and including SUVs and light tricks in these
satandards, can be done with current technology.
Um, if you increase CAFE standards, how many years will it take for
people to recycle their 100 million cars into higher mileage variants?
And, what if I don't care about the price of gasoline and want to drive
a 400hp GTO?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 07:52:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Stork replied to:
Increasing CAFE standards (as Bush himself is starting to talk about) to 33
MPG in the next 10 years, and including SUVs and light tricks in these
satandards, can be done with current technology.
Um, if you increase CAFE standards, how many years will it take for
people to recycle their 100 million cars into higher mileage variants?
Typically about 5. And the current 100 million will replace the 10
year old 100 million out there.
And, what if I don't care about the price of gasoline and want to drive
a 400hp GTO?
You're gonna give GM a fit. They'll have to sell that many more fuel
efficient cars to make up for yours. The "F" in CAFE stands for
"Fleet". For every 400hp monster they sell, they must sell enough
60 mpg cars to average it out. Of course you're free to do an after
market
mod if you'd like.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 09:42:46 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
The "F" in CAFE stands for "Fleet". For every 400hp monster they sell, they must sell enough
60 mpg cars to average it out.
Ahah! But if only, from your perspective, CAFE actually worked that
way. My understanding is that the fleet average is based on the number
of models, not cars produced. If GM made one car model that got 500
miles to the gallon, and GM made ten thousand of one other car model
that got 10 miles to the gallon, GM's Fleet Average would be 255 mpg,
and GM would be ok by CAFE.
Being more or less ideologically opposed to CAFE, I'm relatively happy
with this arrangement. However, being also ideogically opposed to
essentially incorrect legislation, I would say that CAFE should be
written properly so that it fleet averages are properly weighted by
cars produced. This, incidentally, part of the underpinning of my
argument that CAFE has had no impact on the market whatsoever, as it is
so easy to hit a CAFE target. GM has never been required to sell
100,000 Cavaliers to balance out their Chevy Suburban SUVS. They have
only ever been required to sell ONE.
Bush did actually do something that is not well known, but you should
be happy about. Bush's EPA updated the MPG calculation for cars so
that it is more accurately calculated. Basically, all the MPG numbers
on most cars got worse because the old EPA standard had everyone
driving using a gasoline optimization strategy, not a 0-60 one. Now
they jam on the gas and slam on the brakes, and as a result, MPGs for
most cars actually gets worse, except to some extent for hybrids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 10:44:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
[snip]
Ahah! But if only, from your perspective, CAFE actually worked that
way. My understanding is that the fleet average is based on the number
of models, not cars produced.
"The regulatory language describes the calculation as: "the number
of
passenger automobiles manufactured by the manufacturer in a model
year; divided by the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the
number
of passenger automobiles of each model manufactured by the
manufacturer
in that model year by the fuel economy measured for that model."
If GM made one car model that got 500
miles to the gallon, and GM made ten thousand of one other car model
that got 10 miles to the gallon, GM's Fleet Average would be 255 mpg,
and GM would be ok by CAFE.
Nope, it's a weighted average, see above.
Being more or less ideologically opposed to CAFE, I'm relatively happy
with this arrangement. However, being also ideogically opposed to
essentially incorrect legislation, I would say that CAFE should be
written properly so that it fleet averages are properly weighted by
cars produced.
Happy now?
This, incidentally, part of the underpinning of my
argument that CAFE has had no impact on the market whatsoever, as it is
so easy to hit a CAFE target. GM has never been required to sell
100,000 Cavaliers to balance out their Chevy Suburban SUVS. They have
only ever been required to sell ONE.
Nope. Feel better now? See why CAFE should have been allowed to
evolve all these years?
Bush did actually do something that is not well known, but you should
be happy about. Bush's EPA updated the MPG calculation for cars so
that it is more accurately calculated. Basically, all the MPG numbers
on most cars got worse because the old EPA standard had everyone
driving using a gasoline optimization strategy, not a 0-60 one. Now
they jam on the gas and slam on the brakes, and as a result, MPGs for
most cars actually gets worse, except to some extent for hybrids.
Anything helps. There is a certain amount of Heisenberg
uncertainty
principal at work here. I think it was Cummings Deisel that got in
trouble
because they programmed the chip in their trucks to run differently
when
it sensed it was being run through the DOT emmissions routine. It
wasn't
discovered until the europeans started testing the trucks, by different
manners, and discovered the large discrepancy. Regardless of what
standard test you create, if it is not tied to how the actual vehicle
is used,
the tendency will be for the reality and the test to evolve in
different directions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 02:17:15 PM |
|
|
stork replied to:
Nope. Feel better now? See why CAFE should have been allowed to
evolve all these years?
I still disagree with CAFE from an ideological ground, but I am happy
that the law is at least reasonably written for what it does. I won't
feel too bad for GM selling me a GTO, when I can afford another one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 02:48:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
stork replied to:
Nope. Feel better now? See why CAFE should have been allowed to
evolve all these years?
I still disagree with CAFE from an ideological ground, but I am happy
that the law is at least reasonably written for what it does. I won't
feel too bad for GM selling me a GTO, when I can afford another one.
I've had mixed feelings about that. I hate to tell anyone not to
get
their GTO. But it is also hard to think someone would want to be
quite that wasteful. There are better cars, cars with better
power to weight ratios, and there are faster cars. Not that I want
the government telling folks which car is better. But freedom comes
with rights and responsibilities and at some point it would seem we
have a responsibility to not be wasteful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 04:08:50 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1146253727.786104.275270@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
tbandrow@storkyak.com wrote:
stork replied to:
Nope. Feel better now? See why CAFE should have been allowed to
evolve all these years?
I still disagree with CAFE from an ideological ground, but I am happy
that the law is at least reasonably written for what it does. I won't
feel too bad for GM selling me a GTO, when I can afford another one.
I've had mixed feelings about that. I hate to tell anyone not to
get
their GTO. But it is also hard to think someone would want to be
quite that wasteful. There are better cars, cars with better
power to weight ratios, and there are faster cars. Not that I want
the government telling folks which car is better. But freedom comes
with rights and responsibilities and at some point it would seem we
have a responsibility to not be wasteful.
It has already been decided that governments have the ability --- and
responsibility --- to impose design restrictions on motor vehicles. This
has been eroded to some degree over the last few years, but is still in
force.
FOR\or example, governments mandate that designs for bumpers, brakes, glass,
emissions, airbags, structural integrity, tires, and many other features
must adhere to specific criteria.
This is an "imposition" on consumer choice. For the common welfare drivers
cannot drive vehicles deemed to be hazardous to the public. Dozens of models
sold in the past are no longer street legal. You used to be able to tag, for
example. Jeeps with no doors and high wooden bumpers, no emissions, no
airbags, no seatbelts, tires protruding out of the wheel wells, and rear
"windows" made of cracked, translucent plastic.
Making gas guzzlers obsolete is no different.
Yes, some will scream. But the reality is that driving is a privilege, not a
right, and you agree to follow certain rules for the privilege of driving on
public roads.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 04:13:31 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
It has already been decided that governments have the ability --- and
responsibility --- to impose design restrictions on motor vehicles
By you, and your side. This is not a decision agreed to by everyone,
and certainly not me.
Making gas guzzlers obsolete is no different
You know, this is really about Democrats trying to legislate and
intimidate their religion down everyone's throat. If you are going to
ram all of these "improvements" on society, then there is absolutely no
reason at all to expect that your child will learn the ten commandments
and celebrate christmas with the other children.
Yes, some will scream. But the reality is that driving is a privilegeand you agree to follow certain rules for >the privilege of driving on public roads.
Education is a privilege too, and you agree to certain rules when you
and you can learn the ten commandments and gun safety and hunting for
the priviledge of being educated by the state. Your safety culture is
a bunch of crap! Freedom is a two way street. You cannot take away
some else's freedom without losing yours as well. Just because you do
not like cars that do not suck, doesn't mean that everyone has to be
terrorized into complying with your view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 08:15:33 PM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1146258811.558944.206730@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
First, et your attributions stright. Stork didn;t wrote this, I did.
It has already been decided that governments have the ability --- and
responsibility --- to impose design restrictions on motor vehicles
Second, there are no "sides". If your "side" disagreed, they could vote out
the people putting restrictions on your irresponsible, dangerous,
self -destruction behavior and let you commit suicide so your "side" will
disappear.
But youpoeple who want to behave irresponsibly are fully irresponsible ---
they want US to bail them out of the trouble they get theselves into. You
want US to pay your medical bills because you are too irresponsible to carry
insurance. You want US to foot the costs of repairing our vehicles when your
irresponsible behavior causes them to be damaged. You want US to pay the
increased costs for everything from OUR insurance to repairing damage to
roads and infrastructure tp gasoline to burying our children after you run
them down.
By you, and your side. This is not a decision agreed to by everyone,
and certainly not me.
NOTHING in a democracy is unanimous.
Fortunately, irresponsible, self destructive poeple like you are a tiny
minorty.
Tell you what. Move to Mexico and drive you GTO.
Oops. They don;t have the subsidized hospitals and repair ships.
Making gas guzzlers obsolete is no different
You know, this is really about Democrats trying to legislate and
intimidate their religion down everyone's throat. If you are going to
ram all of these "improvements" on society, then there is absolutely no
reason at all to expect that your child will learn the ten commandments
and celebrate christmas with the other children.
NO. This is about people like me getting sick and tired og ittesponsible,
selfish, juvenile people like YOU causing us pain. YOur selfish greed is
driving up the cost of my gas, food, consumer goods, and medical and auto
insurance, I am paying for your irrespnsible toys.
Yes, some will scream. But the reality is that driving is a privilegeand
you agree to follow certain rules for >the privilege of driving on public
roads.
Education is a privilege too, and you agree to certain rules when you
and you can learn the ten commandments and gun safety and hunting for
the priviledge of being educated by the state. Your safety culture is
a bunch of crap! Freedom is a two way street. You cannot take away
some else's freedom without losing yours as well. Just because you do
not like cars that do not suck, doesn't mean that everyone has to be
terrorized into complying with your view.
No, education in the US is not a privilege, it is a right.
Apparently YOU declined the opportunity to exercise your right to an
education and chose to remain ignorant.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats lied 4 times in one day! |
28 Apr 2006 10:41:56 PM |
|
|
Literacy helps. "Stork replied to", means, The stork replied to the
following text.
Second, there are no "sides". If your "side" disagreed, they could vote out
the people putting restrictions on your irresponsible, dangerous,
self -destruction behavior and let you commit suicide so your "side" will
disappear.
Vote out? Ah, the typical genocidal frenzy of the liberal.
But youpoeple who want to behave irresponsibly are fully irresponsible ---
Irresponsible according to who? To you? Your definition of
responsible is subservience to yourself.
they want US to bail them out of the trouble they get theselves into. You
want US to pay your medical bills because you are too irresponsible to carry
insurance.
Actually, we have insurance, and we want people to pay their own
medical bills. It is your side that would like those of us with
insurance to pay for those who are too irresponsible to get it for
themselves.
You want US to foot the costs of repairing our vehicles when your
irresponsible behavior causes them to be damaged.
No, but you would like us to pay for your own irresponsibility. You
talk about irresponsibility of a car accident, yet, you have no
problems with the consequences of irresponsible sex that contaminates
millions of people with STDs and deadly HIV.
You want US to pay the
increased costs for everything from OUR insurance to repairing damage to
roads and infrastructure tp gasoline to burying our children after you run
them down.
Ah, so concerned about safety? I doubt it. Because, if you were, you
would advocate establishing a public database of everyone with every
infectious disease. For that matter, you would not oppose creating
laws to monitor or discourage sex offenders from living in communites,
and you would execute them instead.
NOTHING in a democracy is unanimous.
In an age where everyone can own a WMD, it might well soon be.
Fortunately, irresponsible, self destructive poeple like you are a tiny
minorty. Tell you what. Move to Mexico and drive you GTO.
How about we round up the likes of you instead? You can take some
solace in your numbers on this little Internet forum, but your false
safety morality and your hyprocritic righteousness has been marked and
your days are numbered. You are as obsolete as the trebuchet and you
will be swept aside by history. Your side does not have enough
children, enough money, or ideas. Your decadence and weakness is not
character.
NO. This is about people like me getting sick and tired og ittesponsible,
selfish, juvenile people like YOU causing us pain. YOur selfish greed is
driving up the cost of my gas, food, consumer goods, and medical and auto
insurance, I am paying for your irrespnsible toys.
You aren't paying for anything. In fact, you are not even paying for
your own existence. You are a burden on the state and no amount of
your moralizing will change the fact that you are a cancer on society.
You are no different than a medievel priest claiming moral exclusion
and, incidentally, extempted himself from helping with the crops.
No, education in the US is not a privilege, it is a right.
Why, because you are too lazy to even pay for you read?
Apparently YOU declined the opportunity to exercise your right to an
education and chose to remain ignorant.
All of evolution is stacked against you. Rail on about your values, as
they will be scattered in time like sand in the wind, and just as
forgotten. Your cause is lost, and your struggle is pointless. Your
only possible salvation is to admit your errors, declare your
allegience personally to me, and I may yet forgive you if you can
demonstrate some degree of usefulness.
I am your emperor now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Democrats prove my point |
26 Apr 2006 06:59:38 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Wrong. The middle estimate provided by the EIA is that in the 7-10 years it
would take to bring ANWR on line PRODUCTION capacity would be about 5% of
projected US demand.
At that production level ANWR would have an effective lifetime of 20 - 22
years. Towards the end of its production lifetime production would diminish
while demand increases,leading to ANWR providing less than 3% of projected
US demand.
Yes, which is essentially what I said. Total US demand is about 40
million barrels a day. 2 million barrels a day is 5%, so I'm basically
conservatively taking HALF of the EIA estimate.
Increasing CAFE standards (as Bush himself is starting to talk about) to 33
MPG in the next 10 years, and including SUVs and light tricks in these
satandards, can be done with current technology.
There are several studies that show that CAFE does not actually reduce
the consumption of gasoline because people either drive faster or drive
more and offset the gains. I've read a few liberal web sites that
suggest that the reason you have a gas tax is to discourage consumption
because CAFE is really a symbolic effort and we are way past symbolism.
I'd say, honestly, and you know this, and I know this, that the best
thing for the environment in this country is to let the price of
gasoline rise. If the price of gas goes up, consumption will be
reduced to a more managable level, effectively implemeting real
reductions in greenhouse gasses. People know how to look at MPG
stickers on cars when gas is $3,$4 or $5 a gallon. We already proved
that experiment in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the price in today's
terms was about $3-$4 a gallon.
Instead, you have Democrats, despite all of the scientific studies,
despite all of their screaming about global warming, despite all of
their environmental nonsense, foisting the expectation of a reduced
price of gasoline to the American people when five years ago they were
looking for a 50 cent gallon gas tax increase! Blame the high prices
on gouging? Democrats for low gas prices! Cut me a break. High
prices of oil are the only thing that gets your environmental agenda
implemented and ---you all know it---.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats prove my point |
26 Apr 2006 11:56:32 AM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1146052778.230070.8250@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
Wrong. The middle estimate provided by the EIA is that in the 7-10 years
it
would take to bring ANWR on line PRODUCTION capacity would be about 5%
of
projected US demand.
At that production level ANWR would have an effective lifetime of 20 - 22
years. Towards the end of its production lifetime production would
diminish
while demand increases,leading to ANWR providing less than 3% of
projected
US demand.
Yes, which is essentially what I said. Total US demand is about 40
million barrels a day. 2 million barrels a day is 5%, so I'm basically
conservatively taking HALF of the EIA estimate.
No, it is not, and the fact that you deleted what you clai you siad is
proof.
WHile close, this IS NOT a replacement for Saudi Arabian iports, as you
claim. And my main point is that ANW is A*T BEST 7 to 10 years away from
prodicing the first drop of oil. Saudi Arabia claims to have more cpacity,
Us demand , barring conservation measires, will continue to grow, so BEFORE
ANWR comes on line oil imports for all sources willincrese.
Increasing CAFE standards (as Bush himself is starting to talk about) to
33
MPG in the next 10 years, and including SUVs and light tricks in these
satandards, can be done with current technology.
There are several studies that show that CAFE does not actually reduce
the consumption of gasoline because people either drive faster or drive
more and offset the gains.
None of these studies are reputable, peer reviewed studies.
Driving faster, for example,. assumes that people are allowed to break the
law unrestricted, While speeding is a problem, the assumption that speeds
will increase withot limit to 90, 95, 100 mph on hte interstates is patent
BS.
The same is true about thecommuting distance. Roads are becoming cloggd and
expansion isbecoming expensive and problematical.
I've read a few liberal web sites that
suggest that the reason you have a gas tax is to discourage consumption
because CAFE is really a symbolic effort and we are way past symbolism.
More BS.
Larry
I'd say, honestly, and you know this, and I know this, that the best
thing for the environment in this country is to let the price of
gasoline rise. If the price of gas goes up, consumption will be
reduced to a more managable level, effectively implemeting real
reductions in greenhouse gasses. People know how to look at MPG
stickers on cars when gas is $3,$4 or $5 a gallon. We already proved
that experiment in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the price in today's
terms was about $3-$4 a gallon.
Instead, you have Democrats, despite all of the scientific studies,
despite all of their screaming about global warming, despite all of
their environmental nonsense, foisting the expectation of a reduced
price of gasoline to the American people when five years ago they were
looking for a 50 cent gallon gas tax increase! Blame the high prices
on gouging? Democrats for low gas prices! Cut me a break. High
prices of oil are the only thing that gets your environmental agenda
implemented and ---you all know it---.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats prove my point |
26 Apr 2006 02:19:41 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
No, it is not, and the fact that you deleted what you clai you siad is
proof.
What???
WHile close, this IS NOT a replacement for Saudi Arabian iports, as you
claim. And my main point is that ANW is A*T BEST 7 to 10 years away from
prodicing the first drop of oil.
My original claim is thus: if we had drilled ANWR in 2000, had issued
more permits to refine in 2000, would gas prices be higher or lower
today? ANWR would be just coming on line now, or would be around a
year away. I did not claim that drilling ANWR would halt the
inevitable decline due to peak oil, only that, what we are feeling
today could have been pushed back around 5 years.
None of these studies are reputable, peer reviewed studies.
We have had CAFE for how many years, and, when has gasoline consumption
gone down?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttupus1A.htm
Have a look, crude oil consumption, always goes up. In fact, where's
the economic fact that shows that CAFE works? Let the prices go up or
down to meet demand, and consumers will know what the right thing to do
is. You want people to stop using oil? Let the price go up, and they
will. It's pretty simple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats prove my point |
26 Apr 2006 12:06:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Stork replied to:
[snip]
There are several studies that show that CAFE does not actually reduce
the consumption of gasoline because people either drive faster or drive
more and offset the gains.
That's a distortion of what goes on. If the CAFE standards don't
evolve, the tendency of the market is to hold effeciency constant,
and increase total power. In a market where fuel prices are
in real decline (in constant dollars) this can also lead to increased
consumption. Fuel prices in long term constant decline are
rare (and probably won't exist for another 50 years or so).
However, if the actual intent of CAFE is followed (i.e. not blocked
by a couple of decades of republican obstructionism) the CAFE
standards are gradually increased based upon evolving technology.
At that point actual consumption can actually be decreased.
I've read a few liberal web sites that
suggest that the reason you have a gas tax is to discourage consumption
because CAFE is really a symbolic effort and we are way past symbolism.
It is only symbolic when it has been held constant too long.
I'd say, honestly, and you know this, and I know this, that the best
thing for the environment in this country is to let the price of
gasoline rise. If the price of gas goes up, consumption will be
reduced to a more managable level, effectively implemeting real
reductions in greenhouse gasses. People know how to look at MPG
stickers on cars when gas is $3,$4 or $5 a gallon. We already proved
that experiment in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the price in today's
terms was about $3-$4 a gallon.
The problem is that the cost of energy affects more than just
driving and it impacts overall productivity. A real energy policy
would have CAFE type standards for virtually every form of energy
produced and used. We can note that the currently proposed
energy policy does no such thing and in fact refers to
conservation as a "nice personal virtue".
Instead, you have Democrats, despite all of the scientific studies,
despite all of their screaming about global warming, despite all of
their environmental nonsense, foisting the expectation of a reduced
price of gasoline to the American people when five years ago they were
looking for a 50 cent gallon gas tax increase! Blame the high prices
on gouging? Democrats for low gas prices! Cut me a break. High
prices of oil are the only thing that gets your environmental agenda
implemented and ---you all know it---.
The push for higher auto fuel prices (as oppose to straight across
the
board energy prices, I note you mix the two without regard) was when
the real price of gasoline (in constant dollars) was a huge historical
lows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats prove my point |
26 Apr 2006 12:23:44 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
That's a distortion of what goes on. If the CAFE standards don't
evolve, the tendency of the market is to hold effeciency constant,
and increase total power.
<snip>
However, if the actual intent of CAFE is followed (i.e. not blocked
by a couple of decades of republican obstructionism) the CAFE
standards are gradually increased based upon evolving technology.
that point actual consumption can actually be decreased.
That's the ideology anyway, and I will confess that I disagree with the
premise that mandated rationing, which what CAFE does, is better than
incenting consumers through market pricing signals. However, with that
said, CBO and several other researchers have determined that CAFE flat
out wouldn't work, and that, gasoline taxes are far superior to incent
more efficient driving.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4917&sequence=0
Given that CBO routinely rips Bush's budgets, I think we can safely
assume they are relatively non-partisan.
The problem is that the cost of energy affects more than just
driving and it impacts overall productivity.
The problem is that CAFE basically says, we need to ration gasoline to
preserve a modicum of the lifestyle that we have. The reality is, more
clearly reflected by the market, is that we need to make some drastic
changes. If you would like to pay $100 a tank to take a V8 car to
work, then, most people would not (although, I would love to from time
to time). Instead, many people will take trains, carpools, etc, and,
by high mileage cars.
There's no need to mandate efficiency during a time when the market is
already heavily incented to do so, and there is no need to mandate
efficiency during a time when the market is not incented, as it is not
necessary. We've -proven- this experiment already. When gas prices
went up in the 1970s and 1980s, consumers ditched their heavy cars and
went with the smaller, lightweight variants to the extent that the
primacy of the US automotive (and by association the steel industry),
was destroyed. This nation is more than capable of following pricing
signals to assess economic reality.
The issue that you have with the market, in your case, is that some
people will be marginalized because they will no longer be able to have
cars, and so in your mind CAFE is fair because it subsidizes people
that cannot afford gasoline at the expense of people that can. In
other words, I would not be allowed buy a 400hp V8 so that someone can
get a 4 cylinder bugmobile. But that is a distribution of wealth
problem, not an energy management problem. Policy wise, if you let the
price of gas, or any commodity go up, people will make investments to
not use it. You do not need market intervention for this.
I would, however, like to add that I will agree that the economic cost
of carbon is not covered by the present market model. To that end, I
would rather see carbon sunk, rather than emissions reduced, as
logically, no matter what reason the CO2 goes up or down on the planet,
we can adequately manage its level for the benefit of the United States
and her allies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats prove my point |
26 Apr 2006 02:30:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Stork replied to:
That's a distortion of what goes on. If the CAFE standards don't
evolve, the tendency of the market is to hold effeciency constant,
and increase total power.
<snip>
However, if the actual intent of CAFE is followed (i.e. not blocked
by a couple of decades of republican obstructionism) the CAFE
standards are gradually increased based upon evolving technology.
that point actual consumption can actually be decreased.
That's the ideology anyway, and I will confess that I disagree with the
premise that mandated rationing, which what CAFE does, is better than
incenting consumers through market pricing signals. However, with that
said, CBO and several other researchers have determined that CAFE flat
out wouldn't work, and that, gasoline taxes are far superior to incent
more efficient driving.
That taxes would be superior is undeniable, mostly because of the
flexibility with price. A good model has a tax that adjusts with the
wholesale price of the product. I'm not sure that equates to
"flat out wouldnt' work". A bit like adjusting the funds rate,
it can only have so much effect, and mostly secondary in
nature. But make no mistake, we have the efficiency we have
today because of CAFE. Yes, with a tax we may have been
able to get even greater efficiencies, but I don't think those
taxes would have been any more sustainable than increasing
CAFE standards.
[snip]
The problem is that the cost of energy affects more than just
driving and it impacts overall productivity.
The problem is that CAFE basically says, we need to ration gasoline to
preserve a modicum of the lifestyle that we have. The reality is, more
clearly reflected by the market, is that we need to make some drastic
changes. If you would like to pay $100 a tank to take a V8 car to
work, then, most people would not (although, I would love to from time
to time). Instead, many people will take trains, carpools, etc, and,
by high mileage cars.
There's no need to mandate efficiency during a time when the market is
already heavily incented to do so, and there is no need to mandate
efficiency during a time when the market is not incented, as it is not
necessary. We've -proven- this experiment already. When gas prices
went up in the 1970s and 1980s, consumers ditched their heavy cars and
went with the smaller, lightweight variants to the extent that the
primacy of the US automotive (and by association the steel industry),
was destroyed. This nation is more than capable of following pricing
signals to assess economic reality.
In the short term yes. But unfortunately, we need longer term
solutions.
Truly high efficiency vehicles are not on the market right now. (Well,
here anyway). CAFE should probably be around 60 mpg or so these
days INCLUDING SUV's. If the development pressure isn't there long
term, there won't be the production at the time it is needed.
The issue that you have with the market, in your case, is that some
people will be marginalized because they will no longer be able to have
cars, and so in your mind CAFE is fair because it subsidizes people
that cannot afford gasoline at the expense of people that can. In
other words, I would not be allowed buy a 400hp V8 so that someone can
get a 4 cylinder bugmobile. But that is a distribution of wealth
problem, not an energy management problem. Policy wise, if you let the
price of gas, or any commodity go up, people will make investments to
not use it. You do not need market intervention for this.
Well, you call it a distribution of wealth problem But the truth is
that
this is as much a "market force" as those "pollution credits" that
folks advocate. It forces the market to produce a certain volume of
low cost, high efficiency vehicles in order to "buy" the "right" to
produce
high profit, low efficiency vehicles.
I would, however, like to add that I will agree that the economic cost
of carbon is not covered by the present market model. To that end, I
would rather see carbon sunk, rather than emissions reduced, as
logically, no matter what reason the CO2 goes up or down on the planet,
we can adequately manage its level for the benefit of the United States
and her allies.
There are a variety of models which can address total pollution
production.
Some probably work better than others. The real problem, as CAFE
has demonstrated is that the market forces produce one other effect
(that Heisenburg would recongize). As soon as you create the system,
the market seeks to circumvent its effectiveness through political
means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
