Gas hits $2.38/gallon: Thank you, Mr. President!

[Delija]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Had enough of oil companies charging outrageous prices and making obscene profits? Had enough of polluted air, asthma, lung disease and cancer? Had enough of oil companies funding opposition to cleaner, cheaper energy? Enough in enough!

Only XDFunny could object to alternative fuels and lower profits for big oil. Only he could find air pollution, asthma, lung disease and cancer as good things. Only he could find cleaner, cheaper energy a bad thing.

People wonder why I think he is a freak?

Peace,
D.

[TwoValveKid]

I can see where he is going with it if it is really worded that way.

[Brickboy240]

I don't know why CA is so worried...we hardly get any oil from that state anymore. They have made it so difficult and expensive to drill/refine in that state, most of the oil biz has moved onto other states like TX and LA. CA also has the largest munber of different gasoline formulations of any US state. And they're stumped as to why their gasoline is the highest in the country and use the oil companies as they're convenient scapegoat. Amazing. Their govt. activities of the past 30 years or so NEVER get the blame. Too bad...thats exactly what causes CA's gas problems...not big oil.

The way that leislation is worded really worries me. Making someone "pay their fair share" may sound good to some people (usually the class warrior types that have no idea who is to blame for their state's oil problems), but in the end, what will that legislation really solve? Nothing. Its more symbolism over substance. How about the good people of CA making the CA gotv. "pay its fair share" and get rid of the legislators that pass damaging and restrictive laws, if they want to end the high prices. Their own damn legislators anre MUCH more to blame for the conditions in CA than big oil. The legislators are doing their damndest to deflect blame off of them for this situation...don't kid yourselves!

I am not against alternative fuels/energies at all. Bring them on....IF they're economically feasable. Texas leads the nation in wind powered electricity. I am also a fan of biodiesel and am currently working with several peope that are trying to get that busienss started in this country.

My beef with ethanol is that most cars get 15-20% worse mileage on this mixture and it takes alot more energy to actually produce the ehtanol blend. People are paying more for it and burning more of it.

Sure, ethanol-85 burns cleaner, but not that much cleaner when you throw in the bad things about it I mentioned above. On the whole, cars made today, emit MUCH less emissions than they did 10-15 years ago. Look at the number of ULEV (ultra-low emmission vehicle) autos on the road. Even the gas guzzling F-150 pick-up emits low enough emissions for the EPA to classify it a LEV (low-emission vehicle). 10-15 years ago, we would have never imagined a V-8 pick-up could be such a clean burning vehicle, but this is the case in 2006.

Despite what the gloom and doom mongers say, the fact is that the air IS getting cleaner, despite there being more cars on the road. Why? More low emission cars on the market, period. This is the good news, but don't look for the mainstream media to tell you - it doesn't fit their agenda, so its not news to them. It takes the wind out of Al Gore's movie rantings if facts such as these are tossed in...better for the fearmongers and idealogues to just flat-out ignore these things.

Yes, we still have a ways to go, but looking back, we HAVE cleaned things up immensely in the past 20 years or so, as far as automobile emissions are concearned.

- Brickboy240

[Krackels]

Gas is down to 2.16 here.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by TwoValveKid

I can see where he is going with it if it is really worded that way.

America's big cities all had efficient, cheap, and non-polluting mass transit systems. They had electric trolley cars, electric buses, cable cars in a few places. Subways, at least in NYC were privately owned, so they were cheap to use and efficient (made profits for shareholders).

Then the oil industry along with the automobile industry strong-armed the municipalities into dismantling the surface systems almost 100%, and the subways were de-privatized, which led them from being able to run profitably with a five cent fare, to currently charging a $2 fare that loses money. Not to mention in NYC, the Port Authory (bridge and tunnel control) has gotten the tolls up from 25 cents since I was in high school (and the tolls had already paid for the expense of construction back then) to a current toll of $4.50 (paid one way) on most Manhatten access automobile crossings (some, like the 59th St. Bridge remain without toll, but are less convenient and hard to find for non-New Yorkers)...also, very old, slow and congested. Plus it is hard to implement a toll on something that never had a toll. The Tri-borough bridge and George Washington bridge must have been payed for dozens of times over. The Brooklyn bridge opened before automobiles were even permitted to use it (horse and buggy and pedestrian only). Williamsburg and Manhatten bridges from very clost to the same era. All have tolls IIRC to this day.

I thought "big government" was anathema to "conservatives"? "Big Oil" is different from "big government" how? What about "free enterprise"? How could the City of NY take over the efficient and profitable (and dependable) subway systems? (IRT, IND, BMT).

What happened to "conservative values"? Does anyone know what that even means?

Barry Goldwater, the "father of the modern conservative movement" in the Republican Party - Reagan's mentor in fact - the very guy that showed Reagan the "conservative light" and got Reagan to switch from being a Democrat voter to a Republican candidate, was himself "pro-choice", "against religion in schools", strongly opposed to the Christian Right (or any other religious group) being involved in politics, and clearly opposed to the government in any way shape or form having a say in the sexual activities of consenting adults.

In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired Senator said, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." He said about Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass," in response to Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court where Falwell said, "Every good Christian should be concerned."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater

Today, Goldwater would have to be considered a Libertarian at the most "conservative" and a "liberal" just as likely. Dwight Eisenhower, who may as well have warned us about Haliburton (and the Bush Administrations ties to HAL) by name (if it had existed at the time) in his warning to us about the "military/industrial complex" (Bechtel group, Exxon Mobil, etc., as well) would have to be considered a "liberal" in today's political climate. Certainly very far from today's version of the GOP as seen by people like "Tom".

Bottom line is the Republican Party, the once great "GOP" has seemingly been hijacked by the extreme right wing "neo-cons" who hold virtually none of the "anti-big government" and pro-libertarian views of the great Republican leaders of a seemingly fairly recent time. Even Nixon tried diplomacy whenever possible. He succeeded with China, tried hard in the Middle East, and was a very very long way from the "preemtive war" mentality of today's Bush (shoot first, wanted dead or alive, etc.) doctrine, which seems far more 1930's Germany than the past 200+ years of American foreign policy. (with some possible exceptions, but at least short-lived, such as the Spanish-American War and possibly Grenada).

Peace,
D.

[TwoValveKid]

Cliff notes? Sorry...trying to do HW. Electrodynamics and politics dont mix well

[NewXD40fun]

It appears that California Proposition 87 is a REVENGE initiative to make Californians feel better about paying high gas prices they caused (by their extreme high demand for gasoline). Gas prices will not go down with 87, but Big Oil will be punished for making “obscene profits” by paying a “fair share” tax.

Here is Liberal extremism at its best:

1. “It's time to make oil companies pay their fair share so we can use cheaper alternative fuels and reduce air pollution that causes lung disease and cancer.” Now, how does taxing Big Oil equate to cheaper alternative fuels and reduced lung disease and cancer? This is a revenge and feel-good issue typical of liberal demagogues.

2. “They can afford it.” Now, is this a great reason to tax a business or what? LOL. I can see this justification being used for other industries.....like, let me see now…mmmm…firearm manufactures????? Taxing gun makers will obviously reduce murder right?

3. “Prop. 87 will reduce gasoline and diesel usage by 25% over 10 years.” Only if you buy alternative fuel vehicles.

4. “it will create thousands of new jobs and provide economic growth throughout California.” Pie in the sky based on incentives for alternative fuel research and development………its so easy to spend other people’s money isn’t it.

5. All this new money will be, “administered by a non-partisan board of expert citizens appointed by the Governor.” What in the world is a non-partisan board? No such thing. Just more and more bureaucracy that Liberals love.



Tom

[VAXDGUY]

Originally Posted by Delija

America's big cities all had efficient, cheap, and non-polluting mass transit systems. They had electric trolley cars, electric buses, cable cars in a few places. Subways, at least in NYC were privately owned, so they were cheap to use and efficient (made profits for shareholders).

Then the oil industry along with the automobile industry strong-armed the municipalities into dismantling the surface systems almost 100%, and the subways were de-privatized, which led them from being able to run profitably with a five cent fare, to currently charging a $2 fare that loses money. Not to mention in NYC, the Port Authory (bridge and tunnel control) has gotten the tolls up from 25 cents since I was in high school (and the tolls had already paid for the expense of construction back then) to a current toll of $4.50 (paid one way) on most Manhatten access automobile crossings (some, like the 59th St. Bridge remain without toll, but are less convenient and hard to find for non-New Yorkers)...also, very old, slow and congested. Plus it is hard to implement a toll on something that never had a toll. The Tri-borough bridge and George Washington bridge must have been payed for dozens of times over. The Brooklyn bridge opened before automobiles were even permitted to use it (horse and buggy and pedestrian only). Williamsburg and Manhatten bridges from very clost to the same era. All have tolls IIRC to this day.

I thought "big government" was anathema to "conservatives"? "Big Oil" is different from "big government" how? What about "free enterprise"? How could the City of NY take over the efficient and profitable (and dependable) subway systems? (IRT, IND, BMT).

What happened to "conservative values"? Does anyone know what that even means?

Barry Goldwater, the "father of the modern conservative movement" in the Republican Party - Reagan's mentor in fact - the very guy that showed Reagan the "conservative light" and got Reagan to switch from being a Democrat voter to a Republican candidate, was himself "pro-choice", "against religion in schools", strongly opposed to the Christian Right (or any other religious group) being involved in politics, and clearly opposed to the government in any way shape or form having a say in the sexual activities of consenting adults.

In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired Senator said, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." He said about Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass," in response to Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court where Falwell said, "Every good Christian should be concerned."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater

Today, Goldwater would have to be considered a Libertarian at the most "conservative" and a "liberal" just as likely. Dwight Eisenhower, who may as well have warned us about Haliburton (and the Bush Administrations ties to HAL) by name (if it had existed at the time) in his warning to us about the "military/industrial complex" (Bechtel group, Exxon Mobil, etc., as well) would have to be considered a "liberal" in today's political climate. Certainly very far from today's version of the GOP as seen by people like "Tom".

Bottom line is the Republican Party, the once great "GOP" has seemingly been hijacked by the extreme right wing "neo-cons" who hold virtually none of the "anti-big government" and pro-libertarian views of the great Republican leaders of a seemingly fairly recent time. Even Nixon tried diplomacy whenever possible. He succeeded with China, tried hard in the Middle East, and was a very very long way from the "preemtive war" mentality of today's Bush (shoot first, wanted dead or alive, etc.) doctrine, which seems far more 1930's Germany than the past 200+ years of American foreign policy. (with some possible exceptions, but at least short-lived, such as the Spanish-American War and possibly Grenada).

Peace,
D.

+1 RIP, Ronald Reagan.

[Brickboy240]

Oh, theres no doubt that Bush and the neo-cons are not conservatives, but shills of the corporatocracy. The bad thing is that Bush and his buddies were not even good businessmen when they were in the private sector, which makes their ruling over our free markets even more awful.

I still don't think that govt. price controls or some other "punishment scheme" (lets call it what it is...ok) is the answer. Name me one industry that has benefitted from govt. price controls. There isn't one. Windfall profit taxes are another bad idea.

Again, we the consumers hold the reins to how this little game plays out...even if we don't see it that way. If we collectively bought fuel efficient cars, the demand would slow down and don't think the industry would not notice. Too bad its going to take 4-5 bucks a gallon to make some around here sober up and dump their gas guzzlers. 3 bucks plus didn't phase them.

- Brickboy240

[Delija]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Here is Liberal extremism at its best:

1. “It's time to make oil companies pay their fair share so we can use cheaper alternative fuels and reduce air pollution that causes lung disease and cancer.” Now, how does taxing Big Oil equate to cheaper alternative fuels and reduced lung disease and cancer? This is a revenge and feel-good issue typical of liberal demagogues.

Demand creates supply. Maybe you never heard that. Profits drive progress, again maybe you never heard that. I know you are not at all well versed in the mechanics of economics. But assuming you got past the fourth grade, this much you should know.

As Brickboy pointed out, Bush was a chronic failure at business (private sector). Cheney, his most successful business person in this administration, is as pro-big oil and as pro-"military/industrial complex" as anyone in American history in a position to make policy.

XDFunny, seriously....is there a single thing, one single issue with which you disagree with the Bush administration? Bush himself? What about even a slightest doubt about any of the Bush policies or the man? Is he a deity to you? Or a man?

Lastly, how do you feel about Bush Sr. who seems to disagree with his son over so many issues? Is he too a "liberal extremist Bush hater"?

Peace,
D.