text:
Dependence in any non domestic fuel is bad
So what do we do?
You could walk, but that is to far for most
The main problem is mobile energy sources
In every car we have a power plant
One of the easy solutions would be to cut down the number of power plants or install a smaller version
We could look at joining the cars into a train but how and who pays is a problem
Anyway some driving tips
Slowly accelerate
Brake as little as possible
Do not fill the car up any more than you have too (why carry around the weight of extra fuel)
Wear more or less clothes depending on the temperature
(AC costs, heating costs)
Try to keep the weight of your car to a minimum
Check the cars aerodynamics (cut down on air friction)
Silly stuff like shiny paint can help
Most of that is obvious anyway
Wonder how much I lose carrying around hubcaps
I will keep the spare tyre
Good to know your MPs are no worse than ours
I don?t have to imagine living in a city without a meaningful mass transit system
Solar power needs to be researched it will get there
Wind is too unpredictable
But sails may help especially with getting away from the hurricane
I don?t have any kids to worry about thank god
Now Neil don?t take that the wrong way it is just a saying
$30,000 a year is that all IT pays over there?
May have to move
Want to hear something funny
We will be having elections here this year
It makes no difference who gets into power
They will be spending the time covering their Asses
Fuel is up
Power is up and the supply will fail at some time this year
Interest rates are up
Food is up
Unemployment is up
Wages are down (yay opps no boo)
Not the best time for any government
Gen Y will be a big help too
How I don?t know
But they are young let them walk
Rick the war is not that far away
Supply or resources much the same thing
But it is hard to fight a war without them
from our nice people at the Ministry. What they would REALLY like is for us all to walk everywhere.
Keep the tyres - that's tires to you guys - pumped up to pressure.
Open the window and turn off the aircon in town or below 40mph. On the motorway - freeway - windows up and on with the aircon.
Keep the air filter clean.
Make sure that the engine - lube - oil is clean.
if your cars a manual gearbox - stick-shift - watch the revs and change up before 2,500rpm.
Avoid short journeys as the catalytic converter won't warm up.
Thank God I live near a main-line train station. :)
I am sure you are a godsend to some people
Cheers Steve
PS I will pray for you
Now where is my wallet
Your suggestions are helpful, but not enough.
What we need is a more comprehensive solution. One that includes more drilling, more nuculear, more solar, more biofuels, more of everything.
The probem is that the solution does require a little of everything but there is always some group that will kill each part of the solution.
I wasn't referring to my salary (I make alot more than that).
But imagine being a single parent, having a kid or two, and maybe working as some minial office worker making $30,000.
Think about this for a second. Over here, the Democrats are typically the party of the "poor".
Yet the Democrats solution so far seems to be "grin and bare it" or "suck it up".
Sort of iroinic.
I really don't think rich people get it.
Let's do some math. Say you drive 12,000 miles a year (probably average). Say your car gets 25 miles per gallon (probably average). That means you'll use 480 gallons of gas a year. If gas has gone up $2 a gallon recently, that's an additional $960 a year out of your pocket.
Multiple that by two if you're married.
Now, $960 to me is an inconvenience. $960 to some people breaks the bank.
And that's $960 a year only for gas in the car. Add on increased food costs, increased heating and cooling for the home, and increased inflation.
The real income of most people in society today is shrinking. Bottom line, you make less every year. End of story.
I thought it was a bit low
Since I am not a US citizen
I would not try to influence your vote
Unlike some of the TR members who live on the northern side of one of your borders
AS a rule I see politics as a waste of time
In NZ we have two main political parties
Labour and National
Labour has its origins in the labour movement
National the older is more towards the business side
Both are trying to occupy the middle ground
So we have very little choice
The minor parties hold the balance of power
The last two governments have been coalitions
But thanks for the info
Yes I think it is real stupid to be dependant on 1 source of fuel
There should have been real competition to oil 20 years ago
What we are seeing now is the result of low oil prices for too long
Every part of our societies will have to adjust
But it is always the people on low incomes who foot the bill
Your points a very good however, not sure where you are but I have friends and family that don't make $15000.00 a year and some with from 2-6 kids. These are families that both parents work. And they make to much money for assistance. I can tell you they do go without alot.
I am just barely over your 30000.00 mark and I am an IT Manager. Here in the midwest where I'm at, what I make is considered good. To bad they don't consider the fact that with fuel, food, utilities, medical, etc what I make frankly sucks.
This is a crisis and a shame in one of the Best countries in the world.
Oh, some of the suggestions on saving fuel are lame if you look at the actual savings they would create. And they don't help with everything else that has inflated.
Best solution would be to release the fuel cell technology. Of course that has the potential of actually putting the oil companies out of business. I have been following the fuel cell technology since it's early days and although the real promising ones were bought by Utility Companies and Oil companies and now most of the exceptional systems patents are locked under their control.
I wish I had the know how to create a system. Unfortunately, chemistry or the means to build are not within my expertise or ability.
I know maybe some of you could do it?? From what I read here I know some of you could.
to the oil companies by the vehicle manufacturers
Guess we know where they sit on the subject
It's been over thirty 30 years since I've been in the Quad City area, (I went to college, one of them, in Oskaloosa) and I see some things haven't changed. It was the same then, only at that time there was hope. Sad. Iowa has always impressed me as having a population with a higher level of inteiegence than the rest of the US. How did they get left off the gravy train? Or were they smart enough to stay off the credit train?
BTW there are some smart people working on the problems. But, that's science and you won't hear about in the media. They're too busy with their noses up the polico's butt, or panty watching in Holywood. These are sad times indeed. -d
I marked 2 of your posts as spam. One where you addressed Techrat directly in your insult.
Get with the program Oz... Your comprehensive reading skills suck. Your retention of the materal read is even worse.
Mutiple examples of both throughout this conversation.
And oz. Your offensive.. I respond and mark as spam only what offends me.
Your a bigot. That offends me greatly. Always has. I could care less if your a stupid moron that can't remember what people say and rant about completely off topic subjects.
And oz, as an example of retention capabilities being in the crapper. I did mention that I had bad eye site now didn't I. You do remember that don't you.
You can follow this logic now can't you. I have problems trying to see within the small space of this posting window. Gee oz, eyesite. Seeing within a small confined space. They are completely related now arn't they.
Ever wonder you bigot if that may a part of the reason not all sentences are laid out in order. That I can not scroll back easily and review?
So, whats your problem with your typing. I have noted your retention abailities over any period of time on what people say. That is why you miss quote others. That may explain why you can't type worth crap.
Oz... Your an aragont prick that could care less about anyone or anything. You crizisze and offer nothing. You shove your nose in other people's buisness. When they point out the faults of your position. You resort back to the only thing your good at. Being a bigot.
And bigottry is the only thing you have been consistant with in this thread and many other thread. If all else fails when your arguing, you insult a complete nation of people.
People like you with attitudes such as yours should be shot. That is the type of attitude that gives us war in the middle east. That is the type of attitude that gives us riots... Your attitude Oz. Your the sick pup, not I.
Id love to see you have the balls to state your very same positions in public where others can see how much of a bigot you really are. Wonder how long it would take before you were removed from the place on a streatcher.
And no, that was not a threat. So don't miss quote me. Just an observation that I think your also a coward.
Oh no everyone, it's policeman Dan to the rescue. I don't know what these poor people without a voice would do without you. Just continue to send Tammy work, I am sure she thanks you for wasting her time.
I could go back and tag ALL of your posts as spam as you break rules in each and every one of them, but I don't want to inundate TR staff with work, they already know you are a loser and others don't bother with your BS anyway. Give me your worst, you are just wasting people's time and ****ing people off now, well done. I've seen this before, believe me crying wolf is not going to get you anywhere but eventually ignored for "Mrs. Posting", oops sorry, thats MISS posting to you.
Oh my god, you're an an easy one. I've seen far better here than you, you aren't even somewhat good at this.
But you just do what you feel is right for America and leave me out of it. Free the poor, helpless, voiceless people here from my wrath.
You being a moderator is as hypocritical and ridiculous as Firemarshall Bill giving fire safety tips. good luck with that.
"Offither Daniel! To the rethcue! Ith there a problem here, thir?" Yuk yuk yuk.
There is no reason to keep poking someone
It is obvious you are doing it for your own sadistic pleasure
Time to stop the BS
Time to grow up
What you are doing lowers the opinion others have of you
Stop acting like a child
I know you can do better than that
Really some people
This is a public forum
There are other people reading this
The real subject is important
Not TR.
If DanLM decides to follow me throughout every forum and comment on every post I make, whether with or against someone's comments, while telling me to fk off, calling me a bigot etc., he can take it right back on the nose.
I agree, nobody needs to read it and I also think he has gone way over the line, I oppose and agree to people's comments, that's what a discussion is all about, not simply being a yes man that agrees with everyone as he would expect one to be.
There are enough people here that know me, some like my comments and some don't. Those that don't just leave them alone and move on to what interests them. As for DanLM, he's tried speakling out for you and others as if it is his job, well actually he alrady said he would be the site moderator whether people like it or not.
Fine, want to be a moderator, I suppose I would be your best target.
I am not abotu to let someone re;eated;ly tell me to foff without any recprocal comment though, i am not one to walk away from taht crap.
I am honestly quite sorry that you had to get dragged into it, simply find other links to click I suppose and I'll let DanLM hang himself as he seems to do so well at it, I know where this goes.
A reason for people the go off the hook
I find there is always something that has been done by both sides that sets the other off
Even if they don?t remember what it was
I have no intention of being moderator
So don?t start with the policeman crap with me
There are other people reading these posts
There is no need for them to sift through the garbage just to find something worthwhile
Yes I can be a rat if you like and I am not talking about rodents
I suppose I will get some smart *** or arrogant reply it would be typical
He is not going to listen to you
I have to wonder if he respects anyone enough to listen to what they have to say
Chill out it?s not worth getting upset over something you read in a forum
Your taking it way to seriously
I respect a lot of people here, and I agree to disagree with them. Even in ties where I opose their comments, a efw posts later we generally find middle ground.
Maxwell Edison and I would go at it for hours and hours, thousands of posts. But I have a whole new respect for him since running into people like Dan. Max was at least very clever and kept challenging me with his replies, now when we get pissy with each other, we'll offer a few jokes about it and both walk away. Dan has chosen not to do that though, he has folloed my posts in other discussions and offered more of the same. I have no patience for losers like that at all and he can expect to get smacked for it.
Nice to see that you find more in being resourceful than most do. Well done, you would fly through the 1 tonne reduction program by Suzuki.
Your comments:
"Dependence in any non domestic fuel is bad"
Is Canada really condsidered foreign these days?
anyway, I agree with most of yoru post, though the filling up less is not such a great idea. Keepign your tank topped up provides two benefits.
1) longer vehicle life and lower emissions. Running low (1/4 or less) on gas makes your vehicle burn sludge from teh bottom of teh tank, this harms your injectors, thorwing off the emission system and also kills teh fuel filter, gums up the fuels lines, fuel rail and makes the injector pins stick. Your vehicles engine works harder with a low gas level than it does pulling the added weight of a full tank.
2) Safety, if in an accident, your vehicle has a far greater risk of fire, or explosion with a low or near empty tank of gas than it does with a full tank of gas.
There is no real benefit to running with a full tank of gas, however there is a greater safety risk and damage to the vehicles emission control system by running lower on gas.
Cheap gas doesn't burn efficiently, so regular doesn't cut it, supreme has FAr too many additives for most of todays motors and especially really old ones (where the added detergents in the gas will actually start causing gasjket leaks) a mid grade is usually the best option, even at a higher price, you will benefit in teh long run and it will run a little better in the short term too.
North America is a long way from NZ
Most cars are designed around half a tank I believe
So ? to ? is right for most cars
Good mechanics will check the filters regularly
?longer vehicle life and lower emissions?
You will have to explain that one
You would think a lighter car would use less fuel
Less fuel used would mean fewer emissions as a whole
Less weight would reduce the load on the vehicle components
But you may know something I dont
One other thing if you have sludge on the tank you may want to look at changing where you buy fuel
From memory
We have regulation that determine the level of impurities in fuel
So I guess you dont have those
Anyway a rough road will shake up the tank
Starting and stoping will cause the fuel to slosh around the tank
I think you may be a victim of a myth on that one
?Your vehicles engine works harder with a low gas level than it does pulling the added weight of a full tank.?
Well that makes no sense to me
?2) Safety, if in an accident, your vehicle has a far greater risk of fire, or explosion with a low or near empty tank of gas than it does with a full tank of gas?
Well it is impossible to keep the tank full but I guess safety costs like it always has
Again you may be a victim of a myth
Most of the time petrol needs to be compressed to explode
But overall the full tank thing is not that important
People can make up their own mind
One other thing OZ
Where does the fuel line leave the tank in your car?
Top or bottom?
Or if you like
At what level is fuel to low to be sucked from the tank?
Okay, longer vehicle life and lower emissions. ALL gas, whether high grade or not, gums up after only a short time in the tank, that's wjy stations try to never run dry and fuel trucks constantly keep gas stations over the 1/4 tank level. This gum, a result of additives in the gasoline such as detergents and anti-knock additives create a sludge in the bottom of the fuel tank. This is why manufacturers say to never run your car dry and if possible, refill at 1.4 tank. If you do run a fuel injected car dry, you should always replace the fuel filter as it becomes gummed up with that sludge, as do the fuel rail, injectors, valves etc.
As far as fuel contamination, Canada does have slightly stricter guidelines than the Us, that's why it has always been 'sketchy' or not recommended for Canadians to buy Us gas. Unless it is REALLY cheap, and yuo full with super, many Canadians would rather stick to our gas. It was more important during the days of the leaded gas vs unleaded but still stands today for some.
ALL gasoline has additives, these additives are mainly detergents and some anti-knock additives, supreme gas has a higher amount of detergents in order to purify the fuel by killing contaminants, however in older cars, the detergents can actually eat away at gaskets and seals that are reliant of grime to hold together (even on a 5 year old car). this obviously causes leaks and expensive repairs.
As far as better mileage. If you run yoru car low on gas for extended period of time, or as a habit, you will pick up grime off the tank. This then clogs injectors, burns hard carbon deposits on the back of the valves causing them to remain partially open, clogs the fuel rail and slows down/impedes the injector pins, this causes a sick burn which also results in a clogged PCV valve and hardened vacuum hoses due to excessive heat. This not only results in poor combustion and greater emissions, it also means that you get poor mileage.
"I think you may be a victim of a myth on that one"
Actually I am a licensed mechanic, alternate fuels certified and a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
"Well it is impossible to keep the tank full but I guess safety costs like it always has
Again you may be a victim of a myth
Most of the time petrol needs to be compressed to explode"
Well your almost right. Fuel VAPOUR needs to be compressed in order to explode. You can toss a cigarette into a 5 gal pail of gas without the gas igniting, it will just put the cigarette out.
A quarter tank of gas running with a 7lb vapour lock gas cap is like a bomb waiting to explode. On impact it takes all of the cars millions of dollars in engineering to stop it from exploding. With a full tank, there is less vapour to compress and combust.
This is all high school automotive 101, thought, pretty basic stuff.
"Where does the fuel line leave the tank in your car?
Top or bottom?
Or if you like
At what level is fuel to low to be sucked from the tank?"
Depends on the car, but usually the pickup screen sits just above the bottom of the tank with one pump attached just above it. The pump outlet has spigot that fits through a locking cap that is usually at the top of the tank, though that again does vary by manufacturer.
As far as siphoning fuel, it depends on the restrictor placement and also if the tank is baffled In which case you'd need a robotic snake. Sometimes you can suck it dry but for that last 15 or so years, they have been getting better at thwarting siphoning.
Is you must have different type of fuel to us
Because I heard a different story from the auto engineers I talked to
But like I said the full tank myth is something people will have to make their own minds up about
No I was not talking about siphoning fuel
But it shows how you are thinking
detergents and anti-knock additives
Still using those are you
Ps qualifications don?t make you smarter
They just give you more things to be wrong about
I have to take Techno Rat's side on this one.
Seems to me I've read an article in our Sunday newspaper dispelling all Oz's myths.
Unforunately, I can't find it on-line right now.
And I can dig up 20 dispeslling those MYTHS. Instead of buying into newspaper hype, why not think logically about it.
DO yuo really think that a properly runnign car with a full tank of gas is less efficient that one that has been running on a qurter tanmk for a few months? Give your head a shake and get prepared to pay the mechanics bills.
I don't min, I get people like you all the time. They read it in a book once, but why is their car in MY garage today while they are trying to get me to sign off on a conditional Air Care pass?
I'll pull the filters and throttle body, show them the crap they sucked off the bottom off the tank and them hand them the bill too.
If you want to argue with a mechanic, go ot yoru shop and tell him your BS. I don't have time for this crap, unless you want me to pull your car apart and show you the problems you are ignoring.
You must be highly qualified then.
Common antiknock additives include:
Tetra-ethyl lead
Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT)
Iron pentacarbonyl
They still use burn rate modifiers that reduce ping and post-ignition conbustion that they were using in leaded gas in eth 70's.
Detergents are a main additive, detergents for cleaning injectors (stopping them from gumming up).
You have clearly displayed absolutely no knowledge on the subject at all, that's okay nobody expects you to know about fuels if you have not studied them,and even with facts put forth, you STILL continue to tirelessly drone on and on about absolute garbage without a clue.
If you have a plethora of engineer friends, why are you asking me? I am an automotive engineer, and I am tellign you the plain facts that you can look up yourself anytime. if you want to argue about something of which you admittedly have no knowledge, go for it, but you are on your own.
There are others on TR that share this knowledge too, I wonder why they haven't piped in to correct me?
As for teh US havign better gas than Canada, think again. We have stricter guidelines than most US states, the only one that is close to Canada is Califronia after the emissions act of 1986.
As for which grade or what the best is in the US, it varies by state and can't be determined, the fact that you even mentioned it tells me you have no idea what you are trying to debate.
For someoen with a host of automotive engineers ot talk to "from the auto engineers I talked to" you should be a little more aware, its surprising. I'd say you were probably talking to Automotive mechanics, when I was in school most accepted that certification as opposed to another 3 years of school. Out of every 60 mechanics I'd say perhaps 1 or 2 go on to become engineers or members of the SAE.
If you want to learn about gasoline: http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/autos/gasoline-faq/part1.html
I feel like I've just given a child an automatic gun, just read it carefully before extracting single sentences to throw out as your argument.
if yuo want to know more, pay the cash, put in the time and go to school yourself. I don't get paid for arguing automotive with clueless people on internet forums.
I offered you teh facts, you seem to not want to accept them. Go talk to your engineer buddies and argue with them instead.
I am from New Zealand not the United States of America
Yes we have a different fuel to you
They use different additives
Duh its not that hard I am sure you can remember who you are talking to if you try really hard
I wrote in my first post
Do not fill the car up any more than you have too (why carry around the weight of extra fuel)
Well you screwed that up
I did not say run around with an empty tank
What does extra mean?
Take reading lessons you seem to need them
You lost the chance of a meaningful discussion right there
But in the next post I wrote
So ? to ? is right for most cars
Still not saying empty
With your reading lessons get some help with your spelling
One other thing
Just in case scenarios mean nothing to me
They have been distorted by sales and marketing so much it is a pointless argument now
I did not ask you
You got on your soapbox and started preaching
My original post
Was an attempt to help someone with the rising price of fuel
You do go on and on and on
Talk about off topic
Lets see if I can get this right
The Internet is a game
The real world is outside
Try life you?ll like it
Now who was it that said that
Why the others have not piped in
Well they may think it?s a waste of time arguing with someone who conveniently misreads a post just to start an argument
I think you do it on purpose
Maybe they think an off topic rant is not worth responding to
Your posts are so much like trolling it?s not funny
But that?s life
Loony?s are a part of life
PS your hatred of the yanks is making you blind
New Zealand remember not yank
Got it now?
The clue
Its on the map
My engineer buddies laughed when I showed them what you wrote
I joined in
I stated several times over that you shouldn't run less than a 1/4 tank. I didn't say empty either, perhaps a few comprehension skills upgrades would help you, but I did say why manufacturers don't recommend running too low and, if empty, the need to replace the fuel filter. So if fuel does not gum up your tank and sludge as well as other contaminants commonly found in fuels, why would they recommend replacing the fuel filter? Does it help strain the kiwi juice or something?
Why would that be, do you think?
Perhaps your engineer buddies can help you with that one.
You said, "As for teh US havign better gas than Canada, think again. We have stricter guidelines than most US states, the only one that is close to Canada is Califronia after the emissions act of 1986."
One question for you:
It's an established fact that the various chemicals added to fuel in places like California and Canada (year round) and elsewhere (typically in summer months) to help fight ozone and smog actually decrease gas mileage. Usually by 1-3%.
Now the question. Don't you think that while decreasing the pollutants put out is good that decreasing the gas mileage is bad?
I mean really, so I put out less pollutants per gallon but I end up using more gallons.
Nice! Who was the freaking genius that came up with this idea?
It is actually vehicles in North America that are most responsible for poor fuel combustion. Our vehicles are built cheap, the engines are of the absolute minimum to pass specs. This is how they keep car prices low so that people here will buy them.
It seems that people here are far more concerned abotu the bottom line when buying a car than the quality of engineering.
that's why identical models in Europe are actually nuilt way better than out here, even with North American manufacturers products, European versions are built better that North American.
Additives are ALWAYS in gas, summer, winter, fall in all countries, additives were initially used to stop knock and ping due to pre and post ignition combustion. In North American this is even mroeso due to lighter weight materials where the engines run hotter, thus causing ignition in the exhaust process. Ford designed a thermactor system for reburing emitted gas as so much fuel was wasted creating higher emissions.
GM used a similar system but just a check valve to recycle exhaust into the manifold again. and so on for various manufacturers.
With the poorly designed, cheap engines we face here, we have no hope for getting a full burn and getting maximum fuel efficiency.
Just take the compact spare tire for example.
they put a cheap, steel stamped rim with a 60km tire in the back (apparently) to make the car lighter and improve mileage.
While is does reduce trunk weight a slight bit, the key advantage was the cost of a compact spare compared to a full size tire and rim. Again, it merely keeps the consumers bottom line lower, while offering a meanial fuel advantage.
While people around teh world think we live in prosperous and rich countries, everyone has a heap of money from such lucrative enterprises in North America, the reality is people are just too cheap and demand cheap crap of teh lowest quality.
Just look at our retail environment, same thing. Cheap crap manufactured merely for offering lower prices to entice North American consumers.
?1) longer vehicle life and lower emissions. Running low (1/4 or less) on gas makes your vehicle burn sludge from teh bottom of teh tank, this harms your injectors, thorwing off the emission system and also kills teh fuel filter, gums up the fuels lines, fuel rail and makes the injector pins stick. Your vehicles engine works harder with a low gas level than it does pulling the added weight of a full tank.?
Note the statement (? or less)
No you didn?t say empty
I did not say less than a ?
But thanks for all the info you posted it helps people to understand why manufacturers do what the do
It is well known the US cars are of low quality
I did not think Canada was the same
How many carmakers are there?
PS I did not say what we laughed about
We didn't actiually disagree, we just couldn't see the middle ground. You accused me of stating something I didn't and vice versa, but you have seen the difference and we actually don't even have any argument in our posts about it.
Fair enough on taht then,
As for car makers in canada, I am abotu to leave so i can't look it up, but we do have quite a few in the eastern provinces, that also make cars for teh US market. From what I know they are the same with the exception that we have to follow emissions guidelines similar to California, but that is pretty much everywhere now.
Now if I had said the USA makes crappy cars, that would be anti-American wouldn't it?
We don't build anything, not just cars, as well as they do in Europe. But times are changing, Europeans are starting to feel an economic crunch and are seeking price over quality in many areas, not just vehicles.
That I make no mistakes
I will apologise if necessary
It is part of being human nobody is perfect
But there is a type of person who takes great enjoyment in rubbing peoples faces in their mistakes
Some of them will go on and on until the victim explodes
Then the creeps act as if they are innocent
Try not to be one of those will you
No I did not call you a creep
That would mean you were being paranoid
I know you are not
Also comparing character flaws is stupid
Anyway there is always a need for cheep things
Sometimes its all people can afford
?Now if I had said the USA makes crappy cars, that would be anti-American wouldn't it??
Maybe you are paranoid
It is very difficult for first world countries to compete with the third world
Some of the poor will work for food
I know I can?t compete with that
Damn some of that looks pompous
Never mind just another flaw
Its good to be human
While it might not matter to you kiwi's down there, in the Northern Latitudes it is important. Canada is rather North if my maps are correct, as is most of Europe, and that is even taught in the driving schools. Why you ask? Because of condisation. Gasoline is made up of water as well as oils stuff. (hence: <i>Hydro</i>-Carbons.) When a tank is kept near full there is less condisation and there full less water in the tank. In winter the water aclumulating in a tank kept at less than ⅓ full will acumulate enough water to freeze the fuel system. (As in car don't work.) Your engineer friends should have known this.
As for the additives, you haven't got a clue here as to the chemicle make up of modern petrolem products. Yes they do have additives, all of them do, and yours does too. They actual mixture will depend on the climate area where they will be consumed. Basic Fuel Management Courses cover this. -d
There is also a difference in the fuel additives for the different seasons, to help with freezing and such.
Another big problem with the empty tank is for the long term life of your car.
There is the condensation previously mentioned that makes your car run like crap, but it also causes the inside of the tank to rust. The flakes get knocked off when you fill up and settle to the bottom of the tank.
The further down in the tank you get, the more of the particles you are sucking into your engine. When is the last time you changed your fuel filter?
I consider 1/4 as empty. I can't do 1/2 because I would have to get gas every day instead of every other day like I do now. (700 miles a week minimum).
This is a very important off topic discussion
What is not needed is more people fooling around
You should both be ashamed of yourselves
I am sure you are but I figured I'd check, sometimes its hard to tell without voice inflection and so far you have been fairly serious about this issue.
In an off topic part of the discussion
With no real importance or relevance to the real subject
The real subject
People on low incomes trying to make ends meet and the effect that the rising price of gas has on their lives
A very serious subject that
An important one as well
Some things I know
They will not be able to fill their cars up very often
Some will struggle to keep at above the ? full mark
Car repairs will be impossible
Maintenance will be nonexistent
Make this little argument about ? ? and full tanks look pretty stupid
Bad bad ratty
No cheese or wine tomorrow
It just is.
And Techno, I'm not arguing wither it tough to pay for the gas, but if one can only afford to pay for a ⅛ tank of go-juice it should be the top ⅛ <i>not</i> the bottom ⅛. That also leaves enough for emergencies, such as trips to the Hospital, or Flood Evacuation. -d
But I don?t see it happening
The gas stored in the tank is the same as money sitting idle
They will just use it to try and stretch the budget
And hope there are no emergencies
It would be nice to live in an ideal world
But this is the one we are stuck with
In no way do I think the Russian army was not forced at gunpoint to stay for the fight until every last one was dead. They were myrdered by their own as well as the Nazis.
Germany had almost conquered southern Russia at one point, working towards Caucasan and the oil wells. that woul dhave offered teh German war machine a much needed boost right there.
But as arrogant as Stalin was, Hitler was too and wanted to make a point by taking our Stalingrad as it held Stalins name. He pulled troops from further south where they were successful and, against the wishes of many a commander whom he quickly let go, he ordered an invasion in Stalingrad.
They were simply outmatched, Russians had nothign to lose by sitting there in the snow for days while fighting, Nazi's were not equipped or used to it. Russians weren't used ot eating well, being warm etc. They had been repressed for too many years already and pretty much just stood their ground wihle being shot en mass. But the retreating and destruction of anythign left behind was a good tactical move, it allowed the Nazi's to advance but acquire nothing.
It was such a key turning point, as were the Battle of Britain, Battle of the Bulge and several others. Without Russia, the end would have been much different, if in Allied favour at all.
Sure, D-Day saw a great insurgence of allied troops. Those troops beat a tiring and overworked army back into Berlin, but should it have happened four years earlier, I don't think it would have seen the same outcome, which even then was only barely positive.
... There most probabley not have been a Battle of the Bulge. The deaster of that missadventure (on the Russian Front) was the single most important turning point of the War in Europe. A stragic blunder from the begining. Lessons learned? Doesn't look like it. The US's misadventure in Iraq is proving not much different. Sad times indeed. -d
I have read and heard several reports from people identified as oil industry analysts that increasing US oil production would have little or no impact on the price of gas in the US.
Even if they could start pumping oil from restricted areas tomorrow, the limited amount available combined with limits to how fast it can be extracted would make for only a small percentage increase in supply.
I read once that the total amount of oil available in ANWR is something like a 90 day supply of crude for the US.
The only way we are going to bring down the price of gas while we wait for alternatives is to reduce global energy consumption.
Oil pumped from under the land is easy
The pumps work ok with a minimum of attention and maintenance
Oil pumped from under the sea is different
You need a platform
Workers to run the platform
You have to ship the oil
On land you can pipe it
That is old and I am sure things have changed
But I doubt it is the same cost for land and sea wells
It is not an excuse but an observation
The other thing to think about is the risk to human life
I don?t think anyone wants cheep oil that puts people at risk
Sorry I know that is an easy answer and a cheap shot
Treat the safety part as a separate post
It is not meant to be a personal attack
Everyone has different needs
Some risk their lives all the time
It is only my opinion
Damn it I should just delete it
So, just because something would have little impact, we shouldn't do it?
Obama's position so far on US drilling is that it will take 10 years to get to market.
Ok, if we start now we'll have it in 10 years. But, the longer we wait, the longer it is until we get it.
It's kind of like someone who weighs 400 lbs saying that it will take too long to lose enough weight to have any meaningful impact.
Well, you have to start somewhere, someday.
You can get all the numbers here:http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html
Over the last 8 years there have been differing reports on the project, with each report providing seemingly less and less oil each time.
In essence, IF they get the go ahead today, they won't see a single drop for at least 10-12 years, and that is for teh initial/largest know reserve. There are quite a few smaller reserves, but each time an exploration project is allowed, it will take another 10 years before oil is produced.
Regardless if you get to drill or not, the global oil price will remain the same. Even if you pull it out at $3 a barrel, it will still be on the world market at $140 barrel.
If your theory is correct, in Canada we should be payign less for our gasoline that you do in the. 60% of your imported gas comes from Canada. With refineries just down teh street and a pipeline that runs from Alberta through to IOCO (about 15 mins from my house), we STILL pay a higher price for gas than the Americans we sell it to, and we mainly drill out own.
use their own products or purchase their products from over seas?
Which puts money back into the economy and which sucks money out of the economy?
With Canada as dependent on the US economy as it is, it is also in Canadas interest that we are not getting our oil from over seas.
Right now you drill your own oil, but you import the bulk of it. Again, most comes from Canada but another 40% comes from many other sources.
Canada also buys and sells oil, most of our sales are to the USA, and nobody is arguing the importance of our trade with the USA, don't start getting defensive.
No matter how much oil you get overseas, you will always get a greater benefit buying it from Canada and yes Canada benefits from selling oil, to whomever it is.
Canada also has options for oil sales to Europe though, which the US does not at this time, nor can you provide a supply as your own supply falls short of your own demand. the difference is, we are not dependent on your oil, incomes yes but that can be replaced with trade within the commonwealth and other allied nations.
What you and many others fail to recognize is that drilling ANWR is not going to reduce the cost for gas at the pumps.
Even if drilling started in ANWR, there is still going to be the same, ever increasing level of demand for at least 10 - 12 years until you can start producing your own there.
While it has been suggested that just the knowledge of your drilling would bring down prices, this is very hard to believe as nobody is going to be scared out of gouging by something that WILL be in the future. It will take a good 8-10 years later that other competitors start to see any increase in supply.
With the number of new vehicles put on the road each month, to think that a small increase in your own supply would have any effect on gas at the pump is a bit far fetched. By th etime you actually start seeing any oil out of teh ground, your demand will be so high that it will probbaly be worse than today.
The resolutions are to reduce the demand, reduce the need for oil and STOP FIGHTING THE DAMN WAR. War has been responsible for almost every unrealistic hike in history.
With the Taliban sabotaging the Afghan pipeline all the time, and a thinning force there to protect against sabotage, there is no way you'll see a price drop for a long time.
I know you are thinking that if you drill ANWR you would reduce/eliminate your demand in Saudi Arabia, but that's absurd; with the amount of oil you import compared to the amount you'll get from ANWR, when you need even more than you do today, they are simply not going to balance each other out.
ANWR is NOT the answer, it is a temporary solution, and even then it doesn't work because it is not an immediate temporary solution. It is just a stupid idea.
Drilling ANWR may be neccessary one day, it may produce some valuable oil for you, but it sure as **** isn't a solution for the current problem. That's just silly
if nothing else, is what I am concerned about.
Another note, just being silly here, but if it DOES take the alleged 10 years, at what point should we START?
I was not getting defensive about trade, or putting Canada down. We both benefit or we both get hurt.
If that 40% is taking our money and putting it into over sea markets, that is less money that stays in our system, and weakens us financially. When we are hurt, Canada is hurt.
We need to drill, just like Canada needs to drill.
No, it won't lower the price now, but it does work for the future.
It would be nice if SOMEONE would come up with an alternative for transportation, leaving that oil for industry instead by the time it comes on-line.
"It would be nice if SOMEONE would come up with an alternative for transportation, leaving that oil for industry instead by the time it comes on-line."
Not quite but getting closer:
Brazil is using 25% less gasoline in most vehicles (as mandated) with a great portion of them becoming entirely Ethanol based. This makes Brazil the world's first oil independent country.
ANWR is NOT going to provide 40% of your oil consumption. At todays standards it would provide less than 10%, based on predicted number of barrels per day. By the time 12 years runs by, for EACH of the DOZENS of smaller exploration projects, not just from the word 'GO', how many more cars will you have on the streets and how much MORE oil will you need and how LITTLE of that would be produced by ANWR? We are talking a very insignificant number, especially after the billions spent to get there, and even then the amount of ANWR oil has changed a great deal over the last 8 years, so the projected numbers are way off base. You produce 85 million barrels a day in America, with an additional million per day, will you get that 40% you are looking for? Nope, not a chance in ****!
In short, NO, you will NOT see 40% of your consumption taken care of 12 years down the road. You will be in the same mess you are today, except 12 years behind in doing something about it.
As far as Canada is concerned:
"Canada's energy minister said Sunday he pushed at an emergency meeting of oil producing and consuming countries for more transparency in global markets to allow supply and demand to be the biggest influences on oil prices."
"Although Canada accounts for less than three per cent of the world's oil production, it sits on 15 per cent of the world's reserves -- second only to Saudi Arabia -- mostly concentrated in northeast Alberta."
"Despite its relatively small share of the world oil market, Lunn noted that Canada is one of the few countries in the world that is capable of significantly increasing production.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said last week that Canada's oil output will nearly double to 4.5 million barrels per day by 2020. More than $100 billion worth of investments is on the books to triple oil sands production, which now supplies slightly more than one million barrels per day."
Right now, production costs for drilling in the Abertan oil sands are the worlds highest, yet you feel that by building new refineries or expanding existing ones which are already at capacity, and shipping oil from ANWR to the US, you will see lower prices from a little pittance of available oil?
I'd say that it is just a bunch of oil hungry Americans opposing change, not exactly a realistic or viable argument when it has been proven to help in other parts of the world. Most nations outside of North America have been recycling and using better resource management practices for decades, and they are much better off for it too.
Will it be "enough"?
If everyone trades in for a hybrid TODAY, how much oil will be saved? Will it be enough to make sure we don't use it all up or that the price will never go up, or make a REAL difference in emissions?
Funny, how people don't realize how stupid their argument of "it won't be enough" or "it will take to long" really is, because it is not a valid reason for NOT doing anything.
That is EXACTLY how we got into this situation, people not willing to think long term or look at a bigger picture.
I still wonder why, with prices the way they have been in the UK, why no one over there ever invented anything using an "alternative fuel". Why hasn't Canada come up with this solution? Both are more liberal leaning countries, and both have bought into the whole man made global warming thing, so why are THEY not leading the way?
A bunch of small things add up to a lot. Ricks 400lbs example of a woman didn't get that big overnight. It was one twinkee at a time, over years.
"Funny, how people don't realize how stupid their argument of "it won't be enough" or "it will take to long" really is, because it is not a valid reason for NOT doing anything."
It is NOT enough to solve today's problem, TODAY'S problem is what everyone is trying to solve. Undoubtedly your demand is going to increase to a point where you desperately NEED that oil, but it is nothing of value today. You need an immediate solution, ANWR is NOT it and therefore it is VERY relevant that it will not BEGIN to be available for 10-12 years.
That's just one well project too, other projects, far smaller will take about the same amount of time after each exploration contract is approved. It's just not a solution, end of story, not gonna help.
YOu want to explore and drill for future demand, which will be needed no matter what happens, then do so, but this is not going to solve or even help the existing problems.
Why don't you address the issue with the high prices today instead? High prices due to reduced supply available from the Middle East?
Why are prices so high? Because the pipelines are constantly being targeted by the terrorists. They know how to hit an American, in the pocketbook.
If you were not at war in the middle east, the oil problem would have less impact. If more troops were focused in Afghanistan still, perhaps the number of attacks on that pipeline would be reduced. Perhaps there would be a smaller Taliban and AlQaeda force.
Perhaps there would actually be some progress seen in the Middle East. That's not the case though, Americans were told to forget about Afghanistan because Iraq was the new threat. Well done, you can thank your BS leader for that one too.
Dude, chill out!
First off, please explain to me exactly how the US getting out of Iraq would solve anything.
Would you really prefer a nuclear armed Iran and Iraq? Why not throw in Syria and North Korea too?
Let me tell you something Ozzie boy. Perhaps you don't get foreign policy because Canada hasn't ever really had one.
Get over your anti-American attitude. Please stay on topic.
as you said, chill out.
"First off, please explain to me exactly how the US getting out of Iraq would solve anything."
i don't remember suggesting you get out of Iraq, yuo can post a link to where I did though if I missed something.
The point isn't gettign out of Iraq, the point is, WTF are you doing there to begin with when ALL signs pointed to teh fact that it was just a pile of BS being fed to Americans. If you had stayed teh course, with full force along with your allies in Afghanistan, you would be addressing a more realistic problem.
As for nukes, the CIA had already confirmed that Saddam had NOT sought out nuclear technology and that he did not have teh resources available to him for refined uranium. As far as Iran and Syria go, look on a map, they are different countries and you still have no proof that there was any "imminent threat" as GWB stated it, against the USA.
You are telling me to stay on topic and yet you also go off about nukes in Syria and North Korea? Uh, stay on topic then.
Canadian foreign policy includes?
>The Promotion of Prosperity and Employment
>The Protection of our Security, within a Stable Global Framework
>Projecting Canadian Values and Culture
>International Assistance
If you think Canada, being a commonwealth nation, has no foreign policy, then it explains your clueless reply anyway. Canada participates on a global scale just as much as America tries to, except we are welcomed into that forum and work with allies instead of making up rules, changing our minds and saying they are either with us or against us. We actually have allies, not just people who are forced to put up with us.
Anti-American? look outside your borders one day.
Oz, Rick, Techno, PEACE guys. None of this helps and is definately off topic. Why don't you all try to actually get together and come up with a solution or an idea for a solution. Heck Oz as an Engineer surely you could come up with something that could maybe cut fuel consumption in half. Personally I believe the Fuel Cell is our ticket from oil. $4.00 a gallon Gas SUCKS(pardon my language). Guys your all of above average IQ's get off trying to bash each other.
(off topic but I'm old)I served with some canadians in the Army and my son did in a joint effort in Iraq and Afganistan (he was a combat medic)So I'm glad we have you Canadians as neighbors.
Your right, way off topic. Thanks for the kudos I know most Canadians get along with most americans, its just the few who think they run the world and are above the rest that get to me.
as for being an engineer, it is the SAE (like teh oil grading system) Society Of Automotive Engineers, I am neither a civil or marine engineer bt trade, just an auto engineer who is certified in Air Care testing and alternate fuels.
I have been watching Ballard do the fuel cesl thing and they are definitely onto something, it seems that half of our city busses use them now.
The Gordon sinclair kind, and the OZ kind.
Thank the allmighty the former outnumber the latter
I've had my time of being a man **** too. God only know how many little Oz's are runnign aroun dout there. You'd be happy to hear that my son is not much like me, he has a knack for fixing things and seems to have some of my mechanical aptitude but he's more like his mother than me.
OZ_Media has a habit of turning meaningful discussions into a full-blown argument
Rickk has been called a troll in the past but I do like his new avatar
There are many people working on solutions
Who does not matter?
It will take time a lot of time
It will be to late for a lot of people
But there are things you can do
Even if you don?t need to save fuel
Saving can help someone else
Helping someone else may stop them using crime to supplement their income
So even if you are rich
Saving can help you
I have no problem with the people of North America
Trying to remember if Mexico is central or North America
But Mexicans are fine by me
OZ_Media is not Canadian
So he says
Thanks for the IQ bit
Rick will like it I am sure
OZ already knows it
Well done
he's a poet
and didn't know it
do you feel a need
to share
your personal
opinions with others
so that you
can strengthen
your own argument
LOL, nice post, what a maroon!:D
You said, "i don't remember suggesting you get out of Iraq, you can post a link to where I did though if I missed something."
I found these comments from you:
1) "If you were not at war in the middle east, the oil problem would have less impact."
Sounds like a withdraw comment to me.
2) "If more troops were focused in Afghanistan still, perhaps the number of attacks on that pipeline would be reduced."
Pure foolishness. The amount of oil going through the Strait of Hormuz dwarfs that amount being transported thru Afghanistan.
With Iraq and Iran doing everything they can to try to control the strait, I think our priorities are well aligned with the real threats.
3) "Americans were told to forget about Afghanistan because Iraq was the new threat."
Are you implying that the US can't fight more than one war at a time? Give me a break.
4) "Well done, you can thank your BS leader for that one too."
Nice political commentary. Is that the best you can do?
Do I need to remind you that George Bush was elected twice. That his popularity is at a all time low but is almost double that of Congress.
Glad to hear you don't like our President but it works both ways. There are plenty of Americans who don't approve of yours too.
1) "If you were not at war in the middle east, the oil problem would have less impact."
Sounds like a withdraw comment to me."
Does it? I didn't mention withdrawing, but perhaps the entire premise for that invasion was flawed and shouldn't have happened to begin with. I didn't mention anythign about withdrawl, it's too late now you are in it and must stay the course. Actually, anyone who has followed my comments for a while knows that is exactly my view as i have specifically said so numerous times.
2) "If more troops were focused in Afghanistan still, perhaps the number of attacks on that pipeline would be reduced."
Pure foolishness. The amount of oil going through the Strait of Hormuz dwarfs that amount being transported thru Afghanistan."
Foolishness? Well you seem to think THAT comment also refers to you leaving Iraq, again I said nothing of the sort. You shouldn't be there at all, and should have stayed in Afghanistan where little has remained changed but the opposition is much stronger than every before, when you were lead to believe to had stopped or even slowed the Taliban, which is not the case at all, they just moved back into their Kandahar safe haven.
***On a side note, here's an interesting article from AgfhanMagazine, to show what THEIR thoughts on America's actions since teh cold war have been. They apprently don't see anything but betrayal and backstabbing from America.
". Had the US not neglected Afghanistan in the first place and later on, the country would not have turned into an operational terrorist base for Bin Laden and Al-Qaida to mount major attacks against the United States. "
anyhow back to pipelines, from various sources:
"Saudi authorities arrested 701 suspected al-Qaida-linked militants in 2008, some of whom planned a car bomb attack on an oil installation, the Interior Ministry said Wednesday. "
"Al-Qaida has called for attacks against the Saudi government, criticizing its alliance with the U.S. and hoping to disrupt the flow of oil to the West. The group has also labeled the government un-Islamic, even though the kingdom follows a strict interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism."
"In the latest incident to spell trouble on Pakistan?s border with Afghanistan, suspected Taliban militants attacked check posts, kidnapped Pakistani policemen, and blew up oil tankers destined for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Tuesday."
"Armed men attacked four checkposts on Sunday in the troubled region, where militants blew up 36 tankers bringing fuel for US and NATO troops across the border in March, wounding 100 people. "
I can go on and on with similar news from eth area, but the key is, as long as oil is a target of war, it will cost more. That's pretty basic economics.
"3) "Americans were told to forget about Afghanistan because Iraq was the new threat."
Are you implying that the US can't fight more than one war at a time? Give me a break."
No but the US can apprently only FUNd one war at a time. An issue that has resulted in many Afghani's resenting America is teh funding to offer security to members of th government was removed, thus reverted. The security to protect women who wanted to attend school and work in hospitals was handed back to tthe same terrors that you were protecting them from, so that has also reverted into a repressive and violent condition, women simply stopped going to schools and working hospitals. The only remaining member of government, her name slips me now, was exiled and fled to the safety of UN troops before being taken to America for her safety. So the hreat party about a women serving in government, her key role to support womens rights and freedoms,was a short lived victory also.
The point is, and this can consist of endless examples too, when the US removed teh bulk of its troops, Afghans saw it as teh second time they were betrayed by America and left to deal with it themselves when that financial support was imperative for rebuilding a new country.
There are not enough troop and there is not enough money in Afghanistan, as it has been diverted to Iraq now. I supopse in essence that means that you are NOT able to fight two wars at the same time afterall.
"4) "Well done, you can thank your BS leader for that one too."
Nice political commentary. Is that the best you can do?
Do I need to remind you that George Bush was elected twice"
That isn't teh greatest reply is it? I think teh bulk of the world sees you as cluless for electing him teh first time, that fact that enough people actually believed in him for a second term just shows the world that you are absolutely clueless and easily lead by the hand to be mislead because you want him to be right, whether he is or not. His entire career is a failure, failed at the oil business over and over again, yet he can still be president?
as for your concerns about Canada's PM, believe me, MOST Canadians don't like the PM no matter WHO is is or what party he represents. We don't give a toos about our own politics because our leaders aren't out there invading countries and trying to convert the world to our way of thinking.
If Canadian leaders did mroe than simply screw up Canadian politics, there would be mroe of a reson for people to care, but they pretty much sit on their ***es and do nothing anyway.
Poltics, keep your politics out of my face, off of my daily news and out of teh world's media and I have no concern at all who you elect or what he/she does.
Thrust yoru politics down my throat, try to change the world and have an adverse effect on OUR security and all of a sudden it IS my problem too.
get it?
Not in my face, I don't care.
In my face, I do care.
Canadians in general don't give a crap about politics, unless it is someone else's politics that are effecting Canadians.
By the way oz... I did hit the spam button. Not because of your rude language... But because again you reference peoples place of origion in your slander of them. It's not even specific to the person. You just catagorized a complete nation in your insult to Tech Rat. Good job Oz.
That Oz... Is why I hit the spam button. Thanks Oz... It took one day for you to prove my point about your biggotry...
Your a biggot. And Oz.. Look hard.. find anywhere where I slandered you based on your country of origion. I don't like you. But I do not judge a nation by your actions. Or the people that live in it. You, on the other hand do. With numerous nations... And you chose the most insultive way of catagorizing those citizens. Go for it Oz... Even when I reference the rulers of Iran, i do not slander their citizens.. You on the other hand constantly do it with what now appears to be numerous nations.
Glad to see your a bigot with more then one nationality. It just shows how sick you are.
Show a link where I said that oz.
Again, you miss quote me. I said from the very beginning that I wanted both alternate energy AND drilling
Do you need the link again oz where I corrected you the first time?
This is now the third time you have miss quoted my position.
If you can't get it right, then don't reply.
And oz... My point about it taking 30 years for Brazil.. My position was that it would take 30 years for ALTERNATE FUELS(no matter what kind) to become widely avaible for everyone. Your post, just gave me a bench mark to back up my position.
Again, if you can't follow the logic. You do know what logic is oz, don't you. Then don't bother replying.
And again oz.
Use the search... Need a lesson in how to do it? I provided both a link and highlighted my very first post stating that position.
Know how to read a time stamp oz. You know, last modify date. Look at that also, and you find it has been way before every miss quote of my position by you.
You should be a politician oz, you miss quote people enough.
[edited to add] I have no idea where the **** this post was spouse to appear in this thread. I totally lost where I had to post at the high level to reply to oz.
First of all, "You just catagorized a complete nation in your insult to Tech Rat" Exactly, I didn't directly insult Tech Rat did I ?
You also noted that I am equally "bigoted" towards other nation, which means I do treat everyone equally and don't target a specific nation, well done!
It's also nice to see that you have become TR's new volounteer moderator, does Tammy know you have acquired her position? I am sure you could have been hired to clean up MacDonalds parking lot or crush boxes at WalMart instead of assuming someone else's job.
Then again, I didn't bother reporting all of your other posts here which are well outside of TR's allowable practices, so I suppose a quick review of the discussion will quickly show exactly what your focus is and how you completely ignore the site rules while bitching like a little girl (actually, most little girls are far more mature and literate than yourself). But that is always taken into consideration by the moderators here.
You have also proven to have no comprehension skills to speak of, even after having your atrocious spelling mistakes pointed out, you continue to post like someone just learning to write English, proving you ingest nothing that you read and simply troll for argument's sake.
How typically American it is of you to decide to become the police for others who choose not to speak for themselves, I am sure they are all quite flattered to be supported from such a clueless perspective.
No, you definitely are NOT very clever. are you?
Of all the things covered in my post, you addressed one. You refuse to acknowledge or prove me wrong about your miss quoting me. You have not come close to addressing the cost factor of moving to alternate fuels..
And oz... For your little itty brain. I say 30 years to become affordable for everyone... That was also pointed out in my BENCH MARK post to you about brazil.
Oz, you need to go to a doctor and have some tests done. Your reading retention sucks. I think it also is why you can't type worth crap.
I will no longer bust your balls about how bad you type... But wait, I haven't but once or twice. And only in response to your rants about my spelling skills.
So oz... Shut up unless you can address points raised. Double check your links you are replying to before you reply. Because you are taking things completely out of concept.
And oz.. You moron. At least reply to more then 1 point of a post when you reply. I've see it, you can do it.. It might take you hours to think that far ahead, but I've seen you do it... Or what oz, you'r not man enough to respond to points that your wrong about? I am, even to twits like you. I will even admit where I'm wrong, even to twits like you. Your scum oz, but even scum gets some things right. Your just not doing it today.
Oz, I hate biggots. Truely hate biggots. They are the worse example of a human being there is. You are a biggot. I truely hate you for that reason only. I will always be the first to point out biggoted comments in this forum. Remeber big jake, mechanic man. I delt with them exactly as I deal with you.
So, oz.. Yes, I will become a monitor with regard to issues like that. And oz, your the one that I currently am monitoring because I think you are exactly like those 2.
[edited to add] A scum biggot isn't worth the trouble of spell check or rereading of a post. Deal with it.
First of all, if you can't articulate your thoughts into a sensible post without teh constant name calling (not that it bothers me to hear what you think, again your comments are so insignificant anyway, but you sound like a small child, I would be shocked to find out you have reached grade 8 yet). In the end though, nobody actually cares what you do, say or think.
You remind me of a silver fish, "the damage caused by silverfish is negligible and they have no direct effect on human health beyond psychological distress to those who are frightened or disgusted by their appearance."
When you touch them they merely disintegrate into nothing but a little silver skid mark.
another point, do you really think ANYONE on TR is actually reading your posts? People give up pretty quickly on these sensless rants, I just have a soft spot for teh weak minde and am drawn to see if there is ANY signs of intelligence when I run across people likes yourself.
As for monitoring, you can pretend you're all grown up, you can buy some toy handcuffs and a sherriffs badge, you can wear daddy's boots or mommy's heels if you prefer, but you are still the most miniscule skid mark of a person that your constant and relentless whining over nothing relevant is completely lost on people. I am sure that with your record of posts that are outside of TR's guidelines they will be mroe than happy to accomodate your whining. LOL, I just feel sorry for those who have to listen to your BS and try to reply politely. If they were to try and delete yoru offensive posts, had I decided to report all of them, you'd have no TR presence at all and there would be no trace you actually existed, kinda like when you actually do die.
I have NO obliation or interest in replying to your demands, I think I just do it for kicks sometime because you come up with such stupid comments, its almost amusing, but gets tiring real fast too, I wonder how people in your life deal with it, if you even HAVE people in your life outside of mom's basement.
Anyway, as I have said before, and proved myself wrong, you are nto worth my or anyone else's time, do yourself a gfavour and go make up a new imaginary friend or two to hang out with, you sure need it.
oh yeah I forgot, ahem..... I hate you, I hate everything you say, I hate people just like you, people like yuo suck, you should burn in ****, damn you DanLM!
I am going to help everyone out, whether they like it or not, and stand up for them and jolly well give you what for because I hate you, I hate you, I hate you, I wish you were not my mommy, I wish you were dead! I'm running away to a better place!
get a life.
YOu actually tired of teh discussion?! What is it beyond you now? You don't stoop THAt low, etc. Way too cool for this, aren;t you?
Nah, I think you are just out of uncreative BS to throw out and finally gave up.
hey I just flamed JD, why don't you do some digging, it'll give you something to send in as SPAM so you an toot your little horn and get a woody playing rent-a-moderator. LOL
You really are a slow one, aren't you?
"Why are prices so high? Because the pipelines are constantly being targeted by the terrorists. They know how to hit an American, in the pocketbook."
Although it may be true that terrorists target oil refineries and pipelines to target the US. Their prime reason is to disrupt the economy of the country and its government that owns those resources.
Oil prices are not increasing due to a reduction in supply from the Middle east. In fact, of the top 15 crude oil suppliers to the US, every country in the middle east has supplied more to the US in 2008 than in 2007... to the tune of a total of over 400,000 more barrels per day.
Of the top 15 countries supplying crude to the US, the reduction of supply has actually come from Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, Angola and Algeria which has dropped by over 670,000 barrels per day.
I'm not aware of terrorist attacks to those country's pipelines.
In reality, the price of crude has not risen so much by a lack of supply as it has from a increase in demand from quickly developing countries such as China, the lower value of the US Dollar, speculators, and the fear by suppliers of what may happen in the near future with Iran and, to some extent, Syria.
I know it's very difficult to find anything but liberally-slanted, anti-US news in Canada. But the facts are not hard to find if you look.
The main argument I will give for increasing refining and drilling in the US is to better our energy independence. This in order to keep from being controlled by third-world countries and rogue dictators that serve no good purpose by being in our "pocketbook."
Yes. The benefits from building more refineries and drilling for oil off-shore as well as ANWR will not be felt for many years to come. But, the possibility of a more renewable and cost-efficient energy source taking the place of oil is even farther off. The US has been near-sighted in respect to oil for far too long due primarily to the failures of eight years of Clinton and the ignorance first fostered by the Carter administration. Like it or not, industry and the economy here and in Canada are overwhelmingly dependent on oil. I see this as a necessary tact to ensure economic strength in the interim.
To be fair, the problems we're experiencing today are the result of something that started four decades ago. Prior to 1970, The US was the world's #1 supplier of crude oil. Since then our production has dropped by over 35%. This primarily due to a lack of more drilling and no new refineries.
The current 'fuel crisis', as the Media likes to call it, does not have a quick solution. Although reducing gas taxes would help. The focus needs to be more on where we will be in the next 10 to 15 years. I see such targeted plans to be very "relevant."
Quite frankly, I'm not that shocked with the current fuel prices and expect them to go considerably higher before we see any substantial reduction. We've enjoyed gas prices that have been much lower than most other countries for longer than I can remember. As we now live in a world where the economy and prices are driven more by the world rather than a few countries, it only makes sense to see some 'leveling.'
Lastly, it is not my intention to aggravate. The last thing I want is to have a Canadian pissed at me. After all, Canada is our #1 supplier of oil as you did correctly point out.
BTW, ... how much of the price per gallon in Canada goes to taxes? Here it is appx. 50?. California is the highest at 75? and here in SC it's 35?. (State & Federal combined).
<edited due to blasted typos... not used to typing this much>
Am I to understand that our problems with terrorists is all because of President Bush?
There were not any terrorists attacking the US and US interests before the Iraq war?
How simplistic to try to pass this off on Iraq.
Oil prices can not be equated to a single factor, of course, as no product usually can.
Oil production in the Middle East is up because it was so low before due to constant destruction in the early years of the war and has been slowly getting up to speed again. Of course new figures are expected to trump he former years, again, Canada has just finished talks with Saudi's to up the oil production. They promised 200,000 barrels per day but that is still said to be just playing lip service and nothing substantial.
Supply and demand, if oil production is down elsewhere for various reasons, would that not also equate to an even greater need for full capacity in Iraq and Afghanistan where pipelines are targeted, making oil from the world's largest supplier to be in greater demand during a war?
Oil prices always go out of control during war.
"I know it's very difficult to find anything but liberally-slanted, anti-US news in Canada. But the facts are not hard to find if you look."
Actually I find news here is more thorough than news in the US. Besides watching countless hours of US news in various hotels in the US, we get many Us channels here too, local (detroit, washington etc) and network. We also get BBC News, Islamic news, Asian (Korean, Chinese news)etc.
Quite often you see video footage of press conference comments, public events etc. and in Canada and some other broadcasts a 2 minute clip is shown, airing several opinions. That same video clip, broadcast on some of the US channels is edited and clipped of any "unhealthy" news and is broadcast to show a completely different side.
Its safe to say, and hardly contestable, especially with the White House having imposed media control since WWII, that all news is biased in some way. However I see far more extreme right spin or extreme left spin with no middle ground coming from the US.
Sighting Detroit & Washington as sample US media sources serves to strengthen my belief in your unfortunate sources of information. You could not have made worse choices unless you added San Francisco, Seattle or Denver. The ultra-liberal, socio-political disaster that is Detroit is the major reason I moved from there two years ago.
Having lived in Detroit for 19 years, I am very familiar with most of the news coming out of Canada. If you sincerely believe it is "more thorough than news in the US" then I can very easily understand the source of your clouded judgment. That also clearly explains your stance on Iraq and Afghanistan.
But I see misinformation in a similar way as I do religion: if it makes you happy and feel secure, I have no problem with it. That is as long as you don't threaten my personal happiness and security. And since you're from Canada, there's not much threat of that. ;-)
sideline: The only thing I miss from living in Detroit is being able to cheer on the Red Wings whenever they stomp a team from across the border. Go Wings!
(...too bad they have to do it with ex-canucks on the team)
How much of the cost of a gallon (or litre - I can convert) of fuel in Canada goes to taxes?
I believe it used to be appx. 30%. Is it the same or more now?
Vary from region to region:
But the national average:
For Gas at 105 a litre (January 2008)
59.4 cents to crude costs
14.9 to federal taxes
16.9 to provincial taxes
14.3 to refining/marketing/retailling
You seem to miss that I cited many sources, US news was just one of them.
Obviously, by my comments, I explained that I don't rely on a single source or even a single country's sources, so your diving in on the specifics of local US news is absolutely irrelevant and narrow sighted.
You seem to miss that I cited many sources, US news was just one of them.
Obviously, by my comments, I explained that I don't rely on a single source or even a single country's sources, so yuor diving in on teh specifics of local US news is absolutely irrelevant and narrow sighted.
The funny part is that you say you lived in the area and watched Canadian news, completely failing to see the exact same argument you just made against Detroit news.
As I explained before, if a thre eminute video in Canada is only shown as a 1 minute video in the USA, how is it that you suggest we don't get the full story?
Yes some Canadian news is rather slanted, just as with US news. That's wh I rely on multiple sources, including those most Americans would never consider as they are "the enemies news, so it must be false".
Just try to think abotu what yuo are reding next time instead of just quickly saying "AHA !! "and then running with it, you'll fair better in the long run and not look so blind as to what you read.
"Glad to hear you don't like our President but it works both ways. There are plenty of Americans who don't approve of yours too. "
Well there are plenty of Canadians if nto more than Americans that don't approve of our Prime Minister too, as I have already said. But our Prime Minister isn't plcing you in greater danger, he is not screwing up the economy and spending billions of dollars tryign to change someone else's country etc.
There's a HUGE difference between the two. We KNOW that all politcians lie and cheat, there's no way anyone would support Canada's running off to Iraq to invade on false premises, that's why we didn't support the Iraq war from the get go. In teh US, people stoo dbehind a proven moron and supported his lies, his decit and everything else, when knowing full on that it was all completel horsesh1t but it was a cool cownoay way of standing up, people figured you'd just waltz in a wipe our Iraq, these boards were full of such comments at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, prhaps listen to allies and actually consider what is being said next time, instead of spitting at them, calling them traitors and finding out the hard way.
That's alot in taxes. No wonder some conservatives there are fighting for tax reform. Are they making any head-way?
and thanks for the laughs, Oz.
It's funny to see how poor your typing becomes when someone gets your goat and objectively knows more about a subject than you do.
Relax... you can't always be right.
I have faith your ego will survive.
Count to 10....
Sorry old joke.
Ever been to sea Billy?
Ever been blown ashore?
No? Well bend over and I'll give you a taste of my old fish stick.
Anyway, if you feel you have somehow corrected me or made point, that's fantastic, it must have been moot as I missed it though.
But hey, it's all about how good you feel about yourself, not whether you are wrong or right. As long as you feel good that's fine by me.
If a one legged man wins the para-olympic gold medal, he's still in winner in his eyes.
...and I thought I was conversing with an adult. Well, unlike you, OZ, I can see when & admit when I was wrong.
Thanks for making my day.
The GST which is a federal tax applied to goods (including Gas) and services (professional services), has gone from 7% to 6% to its current 5%.
Federal Income taxes have gone down a number of times since we first balanced the federal budget in 1998. Most provinces have balanced their budgets as well.
To quote from a government study in 2005:
This brief summary paints an overall picture of the tax situation inherited from the Liberal governments since the budget was balanced in 1998. The budget surpluses freed up since then have given the federal government considerable financial flexibility, which has enabled it to make substantial tax cuts. As we estimated for the purposes of this paper, the full range of tax reductions introduced since 1998 provided for lower individual income taxes and higher tax‑based transfers to individuals, and totalled $36.9 billion in 2005 alone. Corporations have also benefited from significant tax reductions, estimated at $4.6 billion for the 2004‑2005 fiscal year.
Now those numbers may seem small to an American, but remember our country is roughly 10% of the population and GDP of the US.
It becomes harder as we got to get more tax cuts, there is more pressure to increase the social spending that was cut to balance the budget in the first place.
Over the past two years, I've lost touch somewhat with what's been going on up there politically. It appears, tax-wise, things are moving in the right direction. I wish I could say the same thing here.
At a time when economic growth needs to be at the forefront, it escapes me how most liberals see taxation (and conservation for that matter) as a wise direction. Neither ever strengthened the economy.
Case in point - There was a Congressman in Michigan that recently proposed an additional 50? per gallon tax increase to "force people to conserve" and earmarked the revenue to go toward preventing Global Warming. This when gas was already over $3.50 and while Michigan is in the worst economic condition of any of the states. He seemed to ignore how strongly dependent Michigan is on the automotive industry and trucking. Fortunately, it was killed (so far) or many more companies would have gone belly-up or left the state.
Additionally... every time someone suggests just a temporary reduction or staying of the fuel tax, it gets nowhere. Once a tax is implemented, it is extremely tough to cut the programs that were set up to use the money.
But we ain't seen nothin' yet!
If Obama gets elected, what we pay now will look like chicken feed!
Even the NDP (socialist) governments in the some of the provinces pushed for balanced budgets.
Of course our taxes were higher to begin with, the gap has closed somewhat though.
Once you balance the budget there are huge pressures on subsequent governments to not run up a deficit.
We of course do still have a significant long term debt, but it is being reduced by the surpluses. Some people suggested that we not reduce the GST, just direct the amount we would have reduced against paying off debt.
As of July 1st, we will see an additional 2.4cents per litre, which is a little over 9 cents per gallon.
Glad to see they are doing something to save the environment, well done.
At least BC translink has stopped getting a raise in road taxes every years or so, that was insane. A crown corporation gets deregulated, a new "private" organization takes over and starts pushing for a percentage of road taxes and other handouts that the former crown corporation was entitled to.
Well Brazil does and they are completely self sufficient now, they all use Flex Fuel vehicles and burn Ethanol which is produced from the corn fields. Yeah I know, there is not enough land in the USA for you to do the same, therefore do nothing instead.
England, Canada and Europe are very big on alternate power.
Homes in Europe are FAR more energy efficient than home out here. People are FAR more resourceful but that is seen as socialist crap by most Americans...because it wasn't America's lead.
Vehicles in Europe have FAR smaller engines than in North America, vehicle engines are also more efficient that equally sized engines in North America.
As Neil pointed out, a focus here (econo box junko car) is available with a 2.0L as the smallest motor. In England the 2.0 is the largest motor. English versions also get better mileage, burn fuel more efficiently and last longer due to better engineering and build quality. Even my SUV, with a European motor is more efficient and puts out more horse power than the exact same SUV with the North American motor.
It costs more so they don't build them here, not only do people want better vehicles, they want the at a lower price. Can't be done, so they don't do it. In Europe people are used to paying a bit more for better quality and engineering in most products, therefore the manufacturer's meet a quality and efficiency demand instead of a cheap price demand.
This doesn't just go for cars, it holds true for clothing, homes, furniture and pretty much everything else manufactured. We buy Chinese, they buy German and Swedish and British.
We just don't get the same quality here, because people aren't prepared to pay for it, while WalMart and Target stores exists.
but all your examples show is high prices just means more economical cars.
These other countries that have had the outrageous prices intentionally inflicted on them by their governments hasn't brought about innovation to get off petrol. Why?
Again you take an ounce of truth and run with it until it becomes a mountain of hope for you.
Brazil drills for oil, if you took even a second to look into it before arguing your point, you'd see the difference.
It's not about whether or not Brazil drills for oil, in any way shape or form. That argument is 100% irrelevant...forget it..no such problem..not what I am talking about.. clear it from your mind.
Okay now?
Brazil is the only country on earth that has become oil independent.
First the government mandated all cars be 15-20% more fuel efficient, burning more Ethanol based fuel, then it was 25%. Guess what, manufacturer's did it with relative ease, makes you wonder how doesn't it? not.
Now, they have the bulk of new cars run on pure Ethanol made form wheat mixed with smaller and smaller portions of oil.
Again though, this is impossible in the USA, you don't have enough grain and you have far too many cars, therefore why even bother, right? Let someone else make a difference, I;ll just keep oding what I'm doing until I am told to do otherwise, hang on, they can't TELL me what to do, that would be a violation of my personal liberties. What a circular discussion you guys make just to substantiate your dream of rilling more oil and ignoring the environment until someone else does something about it and forces you to follow.
You all seem to have the "Why should I change" attitude, and then the "I better not be forced to change, I'd rather accept personal responsibility because I am an American!" attitude at the same time. Nice how that works for you.
You'll take personal responsibility? Prove it. What have you done this week, month to help curtail the world oil crisis?
You refuse to accept people who try to act on it, you refuse to accept any alternative, (even in Brazil where it has proven to be beneficial) and you refuse to be told to change.
In other words, you are just going to do f-all and anyone who forces you to be responsible is stepping on your rights as an American. If you only had an idea just how retarded that all sounds.
A local town council added 15% of alcohol to the fuel of its fleet
15% was the highest level they could use because of the increased risk of corrasion
Alcohol will sit on the top of the engine oil
It does not prevent corrasion like oil
Alot like water
That was along time ago
Today?s cars may not have the same problems
From reading your posts
You are showing a great deal of arrogance
It may be from past arguments you have had with JD
Canada is not perfect
In fact no country is perfect
But it costs nothing to cut the crap
I guess Canada is full of arrogant people
Or is it the French language
Gee I can?t wait to see what kind of reply I get
how a country that still drills and uses oil can be considered by you to be "oil independent", unless you mean they only use their own oil.
I never said Anwar would lower prices today, you are confusing me with someone else.
I never said Anwar was the only place we should be drilling, so it doesn't HAVE to be 40%.
What do I do? I drive 60mph instead of 75mph. it adds about 10 minutes to my travel time each way, but I am getting just over 40mpg with my little saturn.
Maybe some country out there will decide to lead by example instead of complaining that the US hasn't found a solution yet.
Inflicted via taxes. Do I really need to show you a link of how much of the price of gas (petrol) in the UK is taxes?
Who was talking about adding alcohol?
If you want to learn about Brazil becoming the only oil independent country on the planet, http://tinyurl.com/2c9np
I have also not stated that Brazil is the answer to the problem, just used it as an illustration of what full commitment is able to accomplish if it is wanted.
As far as your other comments, Canada has many flaws, too many to reiterate in one post, but it sure as **** isn't America and we are thankful of that in so many ways.
As for JD, he's not a ***** and can hold his own, don't you worry about him.
As for brazil drilling oil, "
"It's not about whether or not Brazil drills for oil, in any way shape or form. That argument is 100% irrelevant...forget it..no such problem..not what I am talking about.. clear it from your mind."
Oil independent in that they have no need for imported oil anymore, you had it.
As for taxes, I think you too were thinking of someone else, unless I was on a bad trip or something. Never take the brown acid, I shoulda listened to Woodstock!
You don?t seem to know as much as you say you do
How nice for Brazil
It?s good that solution works for them
But it does not mean that same solution will work for every one else
So what is Canada doing?
Tell us its much more fun being a critic
Being a critic means you don?t have to come up with solutions
So much easier shooting everyone else down
1) If gas prices are so much higher in Canada and Euprope, why haven't you all taken the lead in developing alternatives?
2) Your higher prices are for the most part only because of your governments. Taxes for socialized medicine is one reason.
How do you plan on continuing to tax gas so high if prices reach say double what they are today?
You keep saying Brazil, Brazil, Brazil.
Ok, and you've made the point that the US doesn't have enough grain to go the pure ethanol route like Brazil because in your words, we don't have enough land and we have too many cars.
What will happen to Brazil when they start growing like China? Brazil is already growing like a weed year over year.
What happens to their whole sugar cane ethanol industry? Will it be able to keep up?
I doubt it. As more and more Brazilians get cars, drive, have larger families, develop suburbs, want air conditioning...sounds like China doesn't it.
Believe me, even Brazil won't be self sufficient forever.
1) As evidenced by my time driving US roads and Canadian roads, and by the dealer statistics that I am familiar with, Canadians buy smaller vehicles than our US counterparts. Yet we still run farms, construction business, camp in the wilderness etc. Don't get me wrong there are still lots of people driving luxury SUVs in the city commute, but on average, we drive smaller.
2)Most of the funding for health care comes from a direct tax, differs from province to province - my employer pays it, same way your emplyer would pay an HMO.
3) There is funding for alternatives. You may recall that the biggest fuel cell company in the world is Canadian (Ballard), and they work with many car makers around the world. Our government gave them substantial R&D grants, tax breaks etc. Our government also subsidises ethanol production(before it became an issue), and mandating minimum 5% ethanol in all gas in a few years.
We aren't perfect by any means (we make low speed electric cars that are popular in the US but can't be licensed in Canada, for example).
But we have taken some steps.
Many Americans make assumptions based on what they hear or don't hear in their media about Canada - you know what they say about assuming...
My god, what hypoccrisy!
First of all, I am not your mechanic. It is not for me to prove anything to you, I posted links to sources of eth information I provided, if you haven't checked them Google it, search back through the thread and look at it yourself. If you have a problem with what is presented, offer some alternate proof, don't just expect OTHERS to prove themselves over and over again because you don't believe them, that is not my burden but yours.
I have NEVER EVER said that the solution is the same as Brazil's, why have you raise dthat question twice? If you don't believe it, that's one thing, you can write to Brazil's and question their claims? If you don't understand it, get some help. The burden is not on me, I already provided the info, you can check it yourself.
See, where you are wrong is taht you simply don't believe what someoen says, then you ask them to prove it and that they are unsubstantiated claims. When in actuality you should simply find proof that YOU are correct, that the facts presented are incorrect and then provide links to THAT information.
You just aren't very good at this, it's like debating with a small child who just says "no it isn't" to everything you say, not exactly clever, are you?
Prove me wrong if that is your goal.
As James has already pointed out, your posturing and poking simply makes you look uninformed and is quite stupid.
As far as Brazil is concerned, your only retort is that it can't last forever, a ncie speculative reply based on a guess of their economy and the clean air mentality of the people. Your insight into their mindset is astonishing, you should get a gig in Vegas with that one.
Th only reason I have mentioned it more than once is because people have denied it; well you simply have to look it up on the internet, they got here but they can't figure out how to Google it? Gives me an idea of the mental midgets I am dealing with ayway.
As far as Canada's actions, as James mentioned we do have Ballard power, they have been retrofitting old and building new city buses for years now that run on Ballard fuel cells, they are the most forward thinkign and progressive ocmpany of its type in the world. More people ride to work here, more people take teh skytrain (rapid transit) in and out of town now. People here are surrounded by trees, mountains, pure lakes and streams. They have seen what turmoil US companies have created for our once protected lands and they certainly do not have an appetite for resource gluttony. It's in our faces, we can't ignore it as easily as most Americans seem to.
anyone that disagree's with you.
Your choice of words used within this thread.
Fk off oz... Your a hypocrite.
You think your above it all... Your worse then the rest.
Why I bother to reply to your anymore is beyond me, I guess I'm just a sucker.
as for me calling someone a *****, there's a difference between saying "k off, Dan, you're a loser" and saying "Don't be a *****" or "only a "***** would do that" etc.
Saying someone is a ***** is hardly as insulting or rude as telling someone to f_k off.
As you seem to not understand how a sentence is structured makes a great difference in how it is perceived, I'll just leave you to it.
Your post was pulled for a good reason, it was full of direct insults, fk off, fk you etc that had no bearing on what you were trying to say, added no emphasis to your comments in any way except to be a direct insult with no direction. And you've continued to do it, without my saying anything.
My comments have been reported and left alone after review more than once.
If your comment doesn't stand up to a moderators review, perhaps you shouldn't be complaining to me, I don't delete posts, and should be questioning someone else, while pointing out all of the posts you keep referring to me posting.
Your dislike for my comments is not my problem, there are people who will review and make that decision themselves upon your request.
When you get a speeding ticket do you state your case to the cop who wrote the ticket or are you better of telling the judge?
I'd say your best bet is to just deal with it and clean up your own posts instead of looking to other to do it and then riddling your own posts with direct, foul mouthed insults.
As for others, they can speak for themselves, they don't need your two cents and are probably better off without your input to begin with.
Your a true moron. You have no clue. None.
You can justify slandering someone with a comment like ***** and consider it much less offensive then me telling you to fk off.
Your a total hypocrite that has no fkn clue on what is acceptable and what is not.
At least I'm not that much of a moron you twit.
I know what I call you is offensive. I do it because you offend me in every post you make that slanders a person not because of who they are but by the country they live in.
Your a total nut case Oz. You have no social skills at all. You have no seance of what is right and what is wrong.
They should lock you the fk up and throw away the key.
Just shut up. That last post of your shows how truely fked up you really are.
You just don't give a sht that you offend people. You justify it with what ever lame excuse works best for you, and only you.
easy enough.
I don't have to speak for others. I'll use their posts to prove my point.
Oz... You ever wonder... Why, by even your own words... People consider your anti American. Which is bigotry based on ones country of residence.
Could it be oz, that your a bigot... And again, by your own admission... You have had to defend your position more then once.
Why is it Oz... That you find it so easy to defend your position, when by your own words. You offend people by that type of comment.
Your a bigot.
First off, the price would drop like a homesick rock before we took one drop of oil out of ANWR, or anywhere else, because the speculators would get out of Oil faster than a boyfriend in an apartment at the approach of a husband.
Another thing that would happen is that it would end the current shortage of supply, bringing prices down further.
However, to see a difference at the pump, we would also need to build more refineries.
Then, if we built more nuclear plants, we could free up coal as a source of gasoline.
The solutions are out there, and they are easy. It just takes the element of CONTROL out of the hands of the socialists.
of people that are intentionally destroying our economy.
Why are we the only nation in the world that is not suppose to drill for our own oil?
If drilling is so evil, and we get 60% of our oil from Canada, then they must have sold their souls to the devil.
What are you talking about? The US drills and refines at full capacity now. 80 million barrels a day is your own country's daily production. That 85 million barrels accounts for 60% of your use. Out of the remaining 40% that you import, Canada provides 40%. So we don't actually give you 40% of your total oil consumption, we provide 40% of you IMPORTED oil.
Nobody has said you can't drill for your own oil, people HAVE said that it is not such a matter of great importance to drill ANWR when the focus SHOULD be on finding a better alternative, ,but everyone is just drooling over ANWR is if it will make ANY difference at all.
the largest reserve in ANWR is expected to produce (on he high side) 7 bbls of oil. Or approximately 1 million per day after about 12 years, that 1 million will drop significantly after the first 10 years. ALL OF THIS IS AVAILABLE FROM THE PROJECT WEB PAGES.
So if 85 million barrels account for 60% of your oil, which you drill yourselves, how will another 1 million barrels be a solution?
My point is that's a long time to wait for VERY little oil that will never make a dent at the [pump nor will it make you oil independent nor will it rid of of dealing with Arabs for oil. The ONLY way around it is to find a different energy source.
Once you find an alternate source or even a mixed source, like FlexFuel, then you have a chance at working towards oil independence. It won't happen completely but it will ease the burden.
You can drill ANWR but it isn't the little oil mine you seem to be thinking it is. ! million barrels a day, even 10 million is a mere spit in the bucket to what you use each day.
We can't drill in ANWR, or 80% of the US coastline, we can't get the MASSIVE oil deposits running under Colorado and Utah, we haven't built a refinery in 30 years, thanks to lawsuits from the environmental-whack-jobs.
et cetera et cetera.
YOu CAN drill ANWR, but simply don't like teh fact that the drillign is restricted due to environmental concerns. Sure you get a few drops of oil, but you also run teh risk of screwing up the migrating Caribou in the area. Why should they be displaced so you can drive 4 blocks to WalMart?
Colorado and Utah, well that would be YOUR problem to sort out, not mine, as is ANWR too but they have explored it and not enough of a case is put forth to justify it.
Its not like you are sitting on the next Saudi sized deposit. A spit of oil and everyone is chomping at the bit, that's pathetic, ever seen Mad Max?
All environmentalists in your world are whack jobs, there is no point in savign teh environment it is all BS.
I think we all see your point of view. F-k the world and anyone who tries to stop me, I want cheaper gas. Very nice.
Why don't you go get a raise instead? That's what I did when prices went up, my expenses go up so therefore my income must accordingly. It's not my employers fault, but it sure as heck aint mine and I can stay home and make enough money.
You want me in your office, you want me to see your clients an build your business, then you have to accept the cost increases of doing so.
You're quite skilled at ranting, raving and making straw man arguements.
I spoke of facts, you move to intent. Put down your crystal ball, because your future as a mind-reader is dismal at best.
The point *you* miss is that we are not permitted to drill in areas that if we did, would keep us going for much longer and bring down the price as a consequence.
Much as you'd like to make this personal about me or my nation, it's not.
Let me explain economics 101 to you.
High prices = scarcity of item.
That's why they are bad.
So we want cheaper gas, only an idiot would want to pay more for something, especially when that something is within easy reach.
So, rather than wallowing in your anti-american nescience, try to get a clue.
LOL, I don't know why people get off on that so much. Put away teh Kleenex and sit down.
Anyone knows that demand creates higher prices, but if you think that drilling now will actually allow you to produce the 60% of your consumption that you buy from other countries, you have a lot to learn.
To think that the global price per barrel would change just becaiuse you started drillign a few more holes is insane. Once yuo have nmroe oil, Americans wil burn twice as much. Once gas is affordable, Americans will cease to care and will just start wasting oil just as with all other resources that don't seem to matter until unavailable on tap. You will inevitably be back iat square one, over and over and over again. New well and it's MardiGras, well dries up and it's time to ***** wnad whine until a new one is opened, up, then it's Mardi Gras again.
Leave a dog a whole bag of food when you go away, it wil eat until it pukes and then bark until it starves and dies.
Leave a cat a whole bag of food when you go away and it will eat, be happy and content and have some left when you return.
Or are you so above question that we should JUST TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.
I think not.
?Americans will cease to care and will just start wasting oil just as with all other resources that don't seem to matter until unavailable on tap?
You idiot
Everyone knows there are different classes in every society
To insisted that poor Americans waste oil because rich Americans waste oil is stupid
Get a clue dumb ***
Ps your acting is not very good
seein gas this has been in teh news and countless reports have been made over many years now, I am shocked that someone of your high calibre cannot seek out the information himself.
Mind, you , you'd have to know how to spell ANWR, OIL and USA, so I can see your issue there.
So here are your links: http://tinyurl.com/2c9np
have a nice day.
You claim that the United States produces 80 million barrels of oil a day? Did that zero sneak in on you? The number is closer to 8 million barrels a day for the U.S. oil production. World-Wide oil production is 80 million barrels a day.
The U.S. consumes 20 million barrels a day....
...45 percent of which is attributed to automobile use.
Per capita, the United States and Canada (along with Iceland and Greenland) are pretty equal in oil consumption, but neither is even close to being the biggest consumers of oil.
Oil consumption in the United States has actually dropped 2 percent over the first quarter of 2008.
Making a case for drilling at ANWR:
DOI (Department of the Interior) estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).
In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
17 billion barrels, by the way, at our current rate of consumption, could produce ALL the oil used in the United States for 2.5 years. (Could be doubled - or more.) And considering that ANWR would only supplement current supplies, not replace them, it could be a significant factor for several decades. (This does not take into account the benefits from the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.) Throw-in the off-shore fields and oil shale in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, North and South Dakota - which estimates have been in the 200 billion barrels range - and the United States has the potential to produce HUGE amounts of oil - even more than the current production of Saudi Arabia and Canada combined.
The largest oil company in the United States (Exxon/Mobile), by the way, controls only 3 percent of the world's oil supply. That company is dwarfed by the real players and controllers - state owned companies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al.
No source, but it's accurate.
(By the way, good interview with Sonja! And thanks for that shout-out.)
It was 8.0 my mistake humbly corrected.
As for teh drillign stats, as we went through this before,m those stats vary odepending on source, not a great deal but enough to throw off any equations, kinda like measuring a wall 1/16" out, and having it grow across the wall to be a 4" gap in the end.
Either way, my point is that you will nto see enough oil from ANWR in order to make a difference at the pump, drilling is not solving the problem, workign towards a better alternative is. Even if it is in small ways, like better transit etc. ewven the 17 billion barrles is a misleading figure/ Production would start slow, build to apeak and then fall off again to a trickle for another 20 years, you've read that exploration report I think, you know what I am talking about.
It's not like you will simply tap into a substantial supply, it'll take 12 years to begin (god knows how much oil you'll need by then) and will taper off too. It is in your best interests to settle things down in the middle east, and help Saudis increase production to get oil prices down. THEN focus on gettign into Colorado's secret oil and ANWR etc. as a buffer and future resource, but we are tryign to disuss high gasoline prices at the pump, even beginnign to drill ANWR today will nto help in teh short term, which is really what we are supposed to be discussing here I think.
As for the shout out:
How could I possibly speak out on TR without saying Hi to one of the few remaining peers from those times? There's not too many of us left now, Max, as you can see, there's a whole new class started now. Time to back up and reiterate my last 4 years of comments again, sigh, gets so tiring being on my side of thr fence it would be so omuch easier just to play dumb and agree with them all.
Af for a good interview: for what it was, it was fun, Sonja's always been great, I don't mind supporting her projects and I hope she suceeds at keeping it alive, but it really wasn't anything relevant to TR anyway except for people simply putting a voice to a name. Your turn soon, right?
thanks for pooping in, take care
As it is, I've spent the last 3 hours reiterating myself for the easily confused, and haven't done a wee bit of work yet, but I threw a huge order in this morning so that'll keep em quiet for a bit.
no one is talking about only drilling in the anwar, as there are other areas that would/should/could be tapped at the same time.
The speculation would change, but the oil will not hit the market for 4 to 10 years, depending on who you listen to. If it were a MINIMUM of four years, all the more reason to start today.
It is not to be done INSTEAD of other measure, but in conjunction with.
A lot of small things do add up.
alternate fuels, and changing from oil where we can are also things to look at.
I am surprised no one is talking about dropping our highway speed limits back down to 55 again. man, did that suckass when it was that slow. (88 km). After all, isn't that another way government can FORCE us to conserve?
How will drilling lower the cost of gas at the pumps even in the long term. You are nto abotu to create enough to supply yourselves and will aways rely on global oil pricing.
IN Canada we drill heaps of oil from Alberta, it is stoll sold at world market prices though
Oz, no shout out for James I even took the time to track you down.
As for the impact of new oil on prices, its classic supply demand economics.
In Economics 101 I leared about supply demand and alternatives. If the demand for chunky peanut butter exceeds supply, price will go up, increase the supply price goes down. If the demand goes high enough some people will chose alternatives, starting with something close (Smooth peanut butter) and working out to more distant alternatives (Jams/Honey).
One of the tricks here is that Saudi is playing the game rather well. When the prices go up too fastand it looks like people will curb their demand or chose an alternative, Saudi opens the taps and voila, things settle down. They keep us hooked on oil.
Not many, outside of JCK, seem to talk about the other way to bring demand down, which is to use less. Of course while "western consumption" may decrease, it is likely that Chinese and Indian demand will keep on climbing, so our ability to reduce demand will diminsh in the future.
Sometimes I'll find myself working by accident and have to stop it in a hurry.
Actually, with some new band developments in the UK I have been as busy as **** lately, only thing is, it is all at night due to the time difference. I have little energy for my day job right now and since I padded my month well, I have a good two months where I can just watch orders roll in and product go out.
anyhow, enough about my work, that's boring a yucky. Sorry about missing you in the shout out, after listening to it I realized I should have said HI. But I did say all the others guys on TR, and at the time I was trying to pull names out of my.....well I didn't come up with it, either way.
I have also been adamant about a need to reduce our wasting of resources, you know very well that is my stand from previous topics too.
That's also why I see no benefit in the US drilling more oil, as if that will lower costs. Demand will stay the same because the US can't possibly provide enough oil to supply the demand and they are locked into global pricing anyway.
The issue in Afghanistan now is due to terrorism on the pipelines and wells. Production has been down since the beginning of the war, it has picked up slightly but nowhere near where it needs to be.
Every war, including WWI has driven the price of gasoline way up. When Hitler gave up on his plans to invade England, he turned and went after Russia. Russia had a valuable region that he ALMOST managed to conquer, but the Russians were too clever and Hitler was all syph'd up by then and was going stark raving mad. against his officers wishes, he got on his high horse and went after Stalingrad.
Taking over Stalingrad would have seen Hitler in a much more progressive position to win the war. It opened up access to a major sea supply route as well as weakened the German flank making it easier to go after Caucasus.
Caucasus was the OIL rich corner of Russia, once he had the oil, he had the resources to fortify his armies.
The battle of Stalingrad, still nearly two years before the D-Day invasion, was the bloodiest conflict of time. With more than 1.5 million killed on one battle and the key goal, was oil. He who has the oil has the lead. But drilling more in the US won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Actually that battle was one of my favorite turning points of WWII. the Russians wer brilliant, not only were they equipped and used to the cold weather, but they were constantly pushed back farther and farther into Russia, leaving NOTHING for the Germans. they destroyed homes, buildings crops, food supply houses etc. they left nothing for the Germans to acquire as they advanced, thinning the army bit by bit until they had nothing left and all of Russia's forces were amassed to defeat the Germans.
Great warfare, brilliant stories or battles and plans a truly fascinating time in history. I'd say that most Europeans owe it to Russia for helping wipe out the German armies. Britain stood their ground in the Battle Of Britain but Russia stood the test of time and had the tenacity to win that battle and save their valued resources.
I do agree that Russia deserves the lion's share of credit for reducing the German army, but they did so with little respect or value for their own troops.
The stories about Stalingrad like "enemy at the gate" where they put soldiers into the battle with a rifle and one bullet are only slightly exagerated. At all costs to them meant, with no hope of survival. The west could not have asked that of their armies on a continued basis, but since the Red army had political officers who regularly shot anyone who objected, and since most of Russia knew what Stalin had done to the Ukraine (starved them into submission), they didn't object to the use of those tactics.
The Russian failure that lead the Germans to Stalingrad in the first place was due to Stalin's arrogance and ignorance. He knew Hitler wouldn't leave him alone forever, but he thought he had more time, and thought the pact between himself and Stalin would buy him a few more years. And Stalin needed a few more years since he purged his army of much of its officers, and hadn't had time to replace them. Churchill warned Stalin of the impending invasion, and Stalin, being paranoid, thought Churchill was playing a game, so Stalin told Hitler about the letter, and Hitler laughed it off.
After Stalingrad, when Russian factories went into full gear and the Soviet armies swelled, it was clear that Hitler was doomed. Still Stalin used his troops like pawns to be sacrificed, and wasted many troops. If Normandy never happened, I still think the Red Army would have taken Berlin, but later and at a higher cost. That was how Stalin played.
Regardless of how much it's demonized, and regardless of how much people want to find alternatives to oil, it's a fact of life that people and nations (and not only in the U.S.) will be reliant - if not dependent - on oil for a long time to come. People can close their eyes, click their heels together, and wish as hard as they want, but the implementation of any viable oil alternative is still a long way out. It simply won't happen overnight; it won't happen in a year or two; and it won't even happen in the 5-10 year range.
There are upwards of 250 million gasoline-burning automobiles in the United States, and who knows how many world-wide. Even if some magic wand could produce an alternative form of transportation overnight, people won't willingly throw away that gas-burning investment they've made. At best, it will be a gradual phase-out that will occur over the course of decades, not years, and certainly not months.
Moreover, less than 50 percent of oil consumption in the U.S. can be attributed to automobiles. The airline industry takes up a huge chunk, as does the railroad and trucking industries, not to mention homes that still use heating oil and the production of other petroleum-based products.
Oil will be a fact of life for a long time to come. So regardless of how long it might take to get new oil fields actually pumping, it's still a venture worth pursuing. If we could have opened up ANWR when we wanted to, it would be producing by now. If we could have drilled more off-shore wells when we wanted to, they, too, would be producing by now. And now, the longer we put it off, the longer it will take to get production from them. The answer - stop putting it off any longer.
The Battle of Alamein at El Alamein, in my opinion (and in the opinion of others), was the biggest turning point (and possibly the first) of the war. Had Hitler taken control of all of Egypt, he had a pact with the Muslim leaders in the Middle-East, and could have dominated in the region.
Did you know that Yasser Arafat's uncle was a personal friend and ally of Hitler? They met often, and shared the many of the same views. Hitler even bestowed honorary Arian status upon his Muslim allies. Had that happened (a German victory in Egypt), the holocaust as we now know it to be, would have been nothing compared to what would have been.
Well done, Monty!
That was actually a short in a TV documentary show we get called Turning Points, don't know if you've seen it or not.
yeah it would have been different, very different.
One question, what does Mr. Burns have to do with it??
Sorry, I couldn't reist.
that so many oil producing countries seem to be against the US producing their own.
We often hear the weak reply of how long it will take, or how little any one spot will produce.
What advantage to people against the US drilling their own oil, is there for the US to continue to be weakened financially? We have been told repeatedly that the world hates the US for reasons other than jealousy, so why do they want it to continue to struggle? Especially when so many other nations are joined at the hip financially with the US and are hurt with the same actions?
The US drilling or not drilling will not have any effect on man-made global warming, so what is the agenda?
Why should we follow the path of doing nothing?
Answer, we shouldn't.
alternate fuel vehicles, hybrids to the citizens of the nation to not need that. You also never dealt with cost to do that. Distribution for alternate fuels. Affordability to average families.
Wait, you posted your opinion with nothing but Brazil as an example to back it up. That is spoused to addressed all of the issues. Guess what oz... Here is a link for you.
The ethanol boom in Brazil, which took off at the start of the decade after a long slump, is not the first. The government introduced its original "Pro-Alcohol" program in 1975, after the first global energy crisis, and by the mid-1980's, more than three quarters of the 800,000 cars made in Brazil each year could run on cane-based ethanol.
Wait, thats when they went alcohol.
Consumers' suspicions remained high through the 1990's and were overcome only in 2003, when automakers, beginning with Volkswagen, introduced the "flex fuel" motor in Brazil. Those engines gave consumers the autonomy to buy the cheapest fuel, freeing them from any potential shortages in ethanol's supply. Also, ethanol-only engines can be slower to start when cold, a problem the flex fuel owners can bypass.
Today, less than three years after the technology was introduced, more than 70 percent of the automobiles sold in Brazil, expected to reach 1.1 million this year, have flex fuel engines, which have entered the market generally without price increases.
This article is 2006, and still doesnt point them as being self sufficient. My point of 30 years which you wish to ignore or ridicule. 75 plus 10.. 1985... 1985 pluss 10, that makes 20 oz... 1995... pluss 8. 28 year.
You missed the boat again oz... Where is your link stating they are self sufficient. What date did they become self sufficient. Why did it take them so long to become self sufficient. This means, vechicles on the market. Affordability. Distribution.
Oz, think it could be what I stated before. 30 years which you so ridiculed.
Shut up oz... Put up some links to back your position.
And that was only using YOUR example. Which had a goverment that did not have to go through the leglislative process that other countries do.
Again oz... wrong, wrong, wrong. Ignoring facts even in the examples you provide.
Typical oz.
Now me.. I knew it would take that long. I bought thinking in advance to be able to use something until better options are avaible. I left my options open to be able to use gas in the wait. Remember this whole argument oz... To drill for more oil until other technologies can become available. Your comment oz that Americans would just use more oil. Well damn oz... I just proved you wrong in the argument of alternate sources being avaible, and of Americans.. Yes oz, your hated Americans moving to other sources even if more oil is produced.
Again oz, you are not stating all the facts. You flat out ignore major issues in your argument.
From wikipedia and quoted directly, to include that they are the first to be considered oil independent.
As I have said, god knows how many times now, I am NOT stating that Brazil has the right solution for America, in fact it has already been deemed not a viable option by Sir Richard Branson who sunk some 3 million into starting his own ethanol company.
Your poinr is moot, so it took 30 years for Braxil to get to the oil independent level, which is also clearly stated in the Wiki article I linked to myself, as a gradual effort mandated by the government to push auto makers for more efficient cars,
How oil independent will America be in that same period by drilling more wells?
Look it up yourself, I don't have time for your senseless ranting about nothing anymore, you even post three or four posts in a row, as if talking to yourself or perhaps its the old, 'say it enough times and you believe its true' issue? I dont know nor do I care in teh least. Just go get some professional help and get a life!
or drill your way out of an oil shortage...
I'd love to see some of his code.
Just because the demand will go down, don't think the prices will go down too. Once they reach $5.00 a gallon many of us will find other ways to get to work or find a job close enough to walk or bike to our jobs. There will always be the jobs that will require that we drive to a customers location to provide the service. This will entail the need for a service charge that includes a high fuel charge. Many of us will just skip these services and learn how to do it ourselves or just junk it and buy a new one. This will increase the amount of serviceable junk in our landfills. Here's a real misconception that has been perpetrated by the electrical industry. Compact floresent lamps are more efficent. Maybe they use less electricity for the amount of light they give off but you can't just toss them in the trash when they fail. NO, they contain mercury and are hazardous and will contaminate the land fills in no time. Do they tell you that in the advertising? Not a chance. The country's laws and taxes are passed and forced upon the middle class by the politicans and upper class people purposely to keep the middle and lower class just where thay are, on the edge of poverty, one paycheck away from homelessness. Will this ever change? No way, the rich are pulling the strings of the large corporations and politicans and will continue to do so until the people can take no more and revolt against the heirarchy that put them there. Politics corrupted democracy, no longer do the majority rule anything.
I read that this past Memorial Day was one of the least traveled ones since they started keeping tabs on what people do.
So, presumably, you had less usage than anticipated demands had projected.
Additionally, prices usually spike for Memorial Day, pull back a smidge, and then spike again for 4th of July.
This year, the prices have just kept on climbing. So, a decrease in consumption (again, I haven't seen hard stats on this, so it could be erroneous) against projected use had no bearing on the price.
I also read this morning that oil speculators are probably going to drive the price of oil higher this week; despite assurances from Saudi Arabia that production will be increased to its highest level since the early 80's. The reasons being that there is a threat to production in Nigeria, and the turmoil in the Middle East.
So, you have one tangibly substantial claim (increased production), one 'maybe-kinda' claim (threat to Nigerian production) and one 'ummm---what's the difference between today and the previous 8000 years or so of recorded history' claim (Middle East Turmoil).
If this doesn't constitute price gouging/fixing (especially the Middle East turmoil reason...c'mon, that is just overtly throwing stuff against the wall and seeing if it sticks), I honestly don't think you could accuse anyone else of ever doing it.
I have no doubt that by the end of the year, one of the reasons the price of oil increases is because people are using less, so they need to buffer profit margins to equalize them to previous levels.
Thank heavens for the commuter train!!
If you reframe the way you look at war, then all wars have been fought over resources; the resource of food, the resource of peoples thought for religion, the resource of political control. Because resources of some type have been the cause of all war, what would happen if you (we) pressured our politician to place stricter controls on how resources are controlled?
Energy, oil costs in particular, are not controlled by the Arabs, etc. Oil is controlled by the futures market just like corn and other food stocks. An investor only need to put down one or two percent to purchase a future. Now what happens if laws are forced to be passed by the citizens mandating that an investor put up 30 - 50% of the cost of the future. This would reduce markedly the cost of oil and have the immediate impact of lowering oil and other energy costs.
Just a thought.
But in the waning days of the Clinton administration, they expired.
You used to have to put more down. I think we should revisit that, definitely.
Is just what you mentioned rickk..
I was thinking about this yesterday, you have McCain on one side wanting to open up drilling. You have Oboma on the other side wanting alternate fuels, but he also wants to put a higher deposit on the speculators.
Me, I want both. And both of those boobs want to heal america. Yea, if so. How about agreeing to do both. Cap the bloody speculators, open up drilling, and give incentives to invest in alternate energy.
It's not one single answer, and these morons still think it is. One answer gives us what we are at now. Screwed. It has to be all of the above. With the pushing towards renewable energy being heavily invested in. And when I say renewable energy, I don't mean just one form of it. All forms.
Why do we always put all our eggs in one basket?
Why can't we have more than one freaking basket?
More drilling, more investment in alternatives, crack down on speculators.
Isn't politics just ridiculous? They treat us like morons just for our vote then once elected, ignore us.
I think one election year we ought to do like those stupid internet emails. You know, those ones that say don't buy gas on a certain day.
I think the next election, we all should just stay home. That would be hilarious.
operate outside US jurisdiction? How many more do you think there'll be when Obama tries to regulate them?
In other words, he's blowing smoke up your a$$ to get votes!
than done. If the investors choose to operate outside of US jurisdiction, as many American multi-nationals do, then tariff them very highly. If the product cant be sold, the price goes down and less expensive alternatives are sought.
then tariff them very highly
of the less wealthy among us are you willing to sacrifice?
were sacrificed in any war you can name? How many are being sacrificed now by doing nothing?
is just dumb. Any tariff or tax is always passed down to the consumer.
Of course, that could be the intent, in which case I would say "At least have the balls to admit it"... at least we'd know who the real enemy is.
If you look further down in the forum you will find that I addressed that issue. I hate high prices like you. I am far from being an environmentalist, but I do face facts.
I do not think this is shooting yourself in the foot. The point was: we and others can die in the energy wars now and in the future, or we can do something about, even if it is uncomfortable.
Tariff won't work because on the futures market traders buy and sell contracts not the actual product. The person holding the contract when it expires buys or sells the physical product.
Second point, tariffs are a cost of doing business and will be added to the price. They won't affect the tradiing of the contract at all.
is to work on the demand side. Less demand, lower price, and greater incentive to seek alternative energy.
Class warfare may be taking on a more literal meaning in the near future. It can be avoided, but not by the few imposing their will on the many. You will be resisted.
They can't share a similar view, it is US politics. In order to have any credibility you must be an absolute opposite party, opposed to all the other is doing with no allowable middle ground. you shoul dknow that by now.
"open up drilling, and give incentives to invest in alternate energy. "
increasing access to your resources does not provide incentive to seen alternate energy, a NEED for alternate energy will though.
YOu are seekign to solve your own monetary issues by getting a lower priced gasoline (which doesn't work, we provide 60% of your imported gas, I practically live on a pipeline and the refinery is just down the street, we have plenty of oil to sustain Canada however our prices are regulated by the world oil price so we are forced to pay more anyway, regardless of our resource availability).
In this case, increased product does not reduce demand or price.
My position is to not rely on any given source.
I'll make it easy.
1). Oil will ALWAYS be a requirement of induystrial nations. EVEN if we do not use it for transportation. It is beneficial to drill for more, otherwise we will be kissing everyones a$$ for it. Period.
2). Until a CHEAP(meaning that average citizens can afford it) alternate fuel transportation is developed, Oil WILL be needed. My guess, it will take 10 years for your average citizen to cycle into an alternate fuel vehicle. That is after the 10 years have passed to get them massively on the market so that used ones can be purchased. Thats 20 years turn around time. What, we sit with our thumb up our a$$ until that comes around? What, we ignore the resources we already have that we are not touching? Sorry, thats STUPID.
3). The tree hungers can't even agree on what alternate fuels to use. Add another 10 years to my second point because of those fkn morons.
Sorry, drilling is PART of the answer. Not relying on ONE source of energy IS THE ANSWER.
NONE SHOULD BE IGNORED. I repeat. NONE SHOULD BE IGNORED. All sources of energy should be aggressively pursued.
Completely disagree with you Oz, and I am not flaming you. Just flat out telling you your position will leave this nation and every other industrial nation like they are right now. FKED. And we will be FKED for 30 years with that position, if not longer.
Drilling for more oil sounds like a way to increase supply, but that's simplistic.
First, oil companies have leases for about 60 million acres of untapped land. They don't drill because they want the supply low.
Second, refineries are already near capacity, so without building more refineries, getting more oil thru drilling will bring about next to no gain since the oil companies would have a hard time bringing it to market.
Third, US uses about 20 million barrels a day, we produce about 5. Even if more drilling DOUBLED our production (ignoring the refinery problem for now), which it wouldn't even approach, we'd still be over a barrel, so to speak. High estimates say we would get about 1 million more barrels per day.
Fourth, if we started drilling today (and again, had enough refinery capacity), the first gas from that wouldn't hit your gas tank until about 2020.
So what's the point of drilling again? You are right, oil won't be going away, but more drilling would be throwing good money after bad, not to mention screwing up the environment more than we already have.
FYI, FactCheck.org offers support for all of these points.
That is also 10 years to market which leaves time to build or expand the oil refineries.
This is still shorter then the 20 to 30 years for alternate fuels to be widely available.
Again, everyone is ignoring the fact that alternate fuel vehicles are not affordable to the general population.
1). When will they be? 5/10/15 years?
2). Even when they become so, what will the maintenance costs be? Will that be affordable to the common citizen. I say it will, but the question is when. 5/10/15 years AFTER the market is saturated enough to offer affordable used alternate vehicles and after market products for repair????
Nobody, and I mean. Nobody has addressed that. Nobody is using this also in their comparisons of drilling for oil, amount of time to market. ****, nobody address's how the average citizen is spouse to afford it.
you didn't. Oz didn't. I raise the question.
Provide an answer WHEN your average citizen can afford these vehicles. provide an answer when the market will be saturated enough to make a difference in new vehicles sold. Provide an answer when the used vehicle market will be saturated enough to provide lower income households the incentive to buy them.
*** I'm talking estimates.. I know nobody knows this answer, but a realistic estimate.
Your time 10 years for oil? I say 30 years before other alternatives will be widely available. You say why drill? I say because there needs to be something there to fill the gap until the other alternatives are available.
Nowhere am I saying not to go alternate fuel or energy sources. Everywhere am I saying that you are ignoring what we have now because you only see the future. I see both the present and the future.
I was just wondering where you got the figure 20-30 years to produce a new energy vehicle?
Branson did try the Enthanol approach but found that there was not enough grain in America to support one city for more than a month, but that aside, it would take less than 7 years to get all new vehicles into FlexFuel burning no oil.
"There are no longer light vehicles in Brazil running on pure gasoline. Since 1977 the government made it mandatory to blend 20% of ethanol (E20) with gasoline (gasohol), requiring just a minor adjustment on regular gasoline motors. Today the mandatory blend is allowed to vary nationwide between 20% to 25% ethanol (E25) and it is used by all regular gasoline vehicles, plus three million cars running on 100% hydrous ethanol, and five million dual or flexible-fuel vehicles. The Brazilian car manufacturing industry developed flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on any proportion of gasoline and ethanol.[10] Introduced in the market in 2003, these vehicles became a commercial success,[11] and by March 2008..."
So while the ethanol solution may not be the best, it has made ONE country self sufficient, the first in the world.
You also suggested: "This is still shorter then the 20 to 30 years for alternate fuels to be widely available."
>Please explain where you found these facts.
"Again, everyone is ignoring the fact that alternate fuel vehicles are not affordable to the general population. "
>Again please explain this fact, do people in Brazil earn more than Americans and pay less for vehicles? I always thought you were on the brighter side of the economy issue.
1). When will they be? 5/10/15 years? >According to your rant, that's no time at all compared to how long it takes to begin seeing oil from ANWR.
2). Even when they become so, what will the maintenance costs be? Will that be affordable to the common citizen. I say it will, but the question is when. 5/10/15 years AFTER the market is saturated enough to offer affordable used alternate vehicles and after market products for repair????
>Again, an argument based on speculation is hardly an argument. Having been a member of SAE for the last 15 years, I'd say it will take far less time than you predict in fact the technology is already there, just not being implemented. how different do you think an alternate fuel combustion engine is? So far there is little difference. If you are talking electric cars, the price, reliability, efficiency, and cost have all come down a great deal over the last few years, a market trend change would force that price down very quickly.
Do you really think there will be one manufacturer building them? Of course not, demand means competition, competition means lower prices as the manufacturer's work overtime to drive costs down themselves.
Your examples are just way off, your conclusions are based on wild guesses that really don't stand up at all.
You timeline is a guess (new car and fuel adoption) compared to facts (time to begin seeing any oil from ANWR).
As a whole, all the ANWR posts are focused on the same thing, we want to drill for oil. We don't care how long it takes, we don't care that it isn't enough oil, we don't care that it doesn't solve our immediate OR long term problems, we just want to drill for oil because it is easier for now and we can't let the "tree huggers and hairy armpit women" be right.
Not very clever!
Well the only validity I see in your argument at all is all based on your GUESSES as to how the automotive industry will develop.
"My guess, it will take 10 years for your average citizen to cycle into an alternate fuel vehicle. That is after the 10 years have passed to get them massively on the market so that used ones can be purchased. Thats 20 years turn around time."
Why and can you explain how you derived on your claim. I know it's a guess but even a guess is based on some faction. if not your guess could be 100 years or 5 minutes and it would make no difference.
Why would it take 10 years to get them on the market, when the average development cycle is about 3-5 years?
Why would it take 10 years for people to adopt a new technology when past technology adoption shows a much faster adoption rate?
Those are the guesses I disagree with.
IF you were to find a fairly renewable resource for vehicles, kinda like Brazil already did, would you roil consumption not drop to the point where you could be practically self sustained by your own supply and a small amount of import from Canada?
ANWR, looking WAY too fer down the road for this topic, this is about the price of gas today, not that you could actually start drilling your first well 12 years from now, and what do you think your demand would be 12 years from now, you think that ANWR's first and largest supply will actually support your constantly increasing demand?
Do you know how many new cars hit the road each month?
In order to make any difference, you'd have to send a lot more Americans to Iraq so you can cull the herd a bit.
now if you could state your aggression without the useless tree hugger comments you'd have more credibility, what do TREE huggers have to do with wiser use of nonrenewable resources? Tree huggers are out there trying to save protected forests from being destroyed by foreign company's clear cutting them. Not too much relation between saving the forest and finding an alternate fuel source.
in other words, you never thought about it.
Your points are invalid until you do.
At least I address the issue, which is more then you ever did with your position.
Your arguments are null and void until you do..
Prove me wrong. I put forward the argument that nobody has addressed WHEN. It's a **** of a lot more then you did. You just said deal with it, thats all you've done.
Deal with this. Your wrong till you at least address it.
And Oz, it YOUR SOLUTION for alternate fuels. Well god damn it, prove its feasible with my concerns. The PROOF falls on you, not me.
So don't give me crap about that. THOSE are the only afforadble alternate fuel cars there are right now.
The tree huggers are bitching because of the farm land being used.
The beading liberals are crying about the starving people.
Both those moron groups don't get the fact that ethanol can be created numerous ways.
The distribution system IS NOT IN PLACE.
it's still 10 years down the road.
It still requires OIL.
It's a one sided argument on people that want alternate fuels. When you can answer my mother fkn questions on what and how. Then I'll believe the CRAP.
But, right now..... It's like Obama and his liberal pipe dream of peace, love, and harmony. It's nothing but a dream with not all issues taken into consideration.
Which is exactly what your argument is. A pipe dream that ignores serious questions.
Reading your initial post I see many assertions but no real questions demanding answers.
Your last post makes no sense at all, I don't have a clue what you are referring to as you don't reiterate you just use the terms IT as if I know what you're talking about. What IT needs your approval to be considered valid?
Judging by the inaccurate guess that was your original post, you have no place asking for proof of anything anyway, you provided proof on NOTHING and yet a bunch of claims, then asked for proof against it?
What the **** are you on about?
as for more efficient vehicles, and renewable resources. Europe has more efficient vehicles, as does Japan, South America and most other nations. North America has the cheapest, most poorly built automobile market in the world. Even North American bars in other countries are better than they are here in North America. People here are too cheap and want bigger for less, instead of more efficient at an affordable price.
When will al alternate be availble? never if we focus on drilling oil and increasing refineries product. Note yo are maxed out now, with a producion of 85 million barrels a day and that STILL equates to less than 40% of your consumption, how do you feel an added 5-10 million barrels per day, which you have no way of refining at this time, be of any help at all?
Answer: It will not make even the slightest bit of difference, you'll just find someone else to ***** about being the problem then.
As it is now, I am the problem, you have already provided your views, though based on complete garbage with no conclusive proof at all, you still did it and thus I am at fault? You are a screwy one aren't you?!
My proof:
brazil has already become oil independent by utilizing FlxFuel, that sounds like a better alternative than "more of the same unless someone has a better idea."
Europe has better, more efficient vehicles but Americans won't buy them. They don't have V8's or even V6's in most cases, they aren't large enough, they aren't cheap enough.
We can't develop other means of power because as long as oil barons run the show, there will be no sizable investment into new energy sources, no support from government etc.
In other words, until you are ready to make a change there will be no change, when you are ready, there are options, you just need to look around you without your arms folded in a huff, waiting for someone to change it for you.
Personal responsibility, try taking some yourself.
that is neither my problem nor my concern.
It has been done elsewhere. I have also not said you should be driving an Ethanol burning car. I said that ONE country has made an effort and, based on their resources has become oil independent. They didn't just ***** and whine about drilling in some remote wildlife reserve, they took action and it worked. the government was in on it too though, whereas in the US the government is pretty much owned and operated by the oil companies.
YOUR only solution to the world oil crisis is to start exploration and drilling in an area where the greatest estimate would reduce your need for foreign oil supply by minuscule fractions? nice one, great solution I can see why you wouldn't be open to other ideas, that makes so much more sense!
Lets see, you currently pull about 85 million barrels a day out of America. This is about 60% of your consumption. If the greatest ANWR reserve estimates are true (at the highest estimate), you will see a million or so barrels per day. That's less than 1:100 of your daily consumption. Given the fact that it would also require new refineries, the whole idea is just an expensive waste of resources when that same money could be invested into developing a more sustainable solution. Without money there are no alternatives, just the way your government likes it.
Do you not realize that it is in your government's best interests to have prices sky high and not lowering? The BS you get fed about pushing to lower prices is crap, they are far better off with the highest price.
Will the oil companies invest in better solutions? Sure why not.
So how long will it take? until your government stops relying on oil companies and Middle Eastern money invested into the US economy.
Nice solution, you are a clever one, aren't you?
Why the fk shouldn't america drill for oil.
If we meet the requirments of being energy dependent using altnerate fuels.
Why the fk can't we sell it to other nations.
Just because we might not use it doesn't say that other nations won't. We have just as much right to drill for oil and sell it to the highest bider as any other nation.
Tree hugers be damned.
Seeing as I haven't even mentioned the word hybrid, nor hybrid vehicle that point is entirely moot.
seeing as I haven't mentioned Ethanol as a viable alternative, and in fact said it was NOT a solution in America, that point would also be moot.
seeing as your post is a rude, offensive and personal attack, it has been reported as spam for removal as it certainly does not fit within the allowable boundaries of TechRepublic's Forum.
In future, please remember that this is a public forum and such posts will be ignored by me and are offensive to others.
Nobody said you can't. as for being energy INdependent (which is what I think you meant), you could never supply your own nation if you sucked ANWR dry tomorrow. There's no way you'll be selling it off.
The part about that being an alternate fuel just doesn't make sense, drilling for oil is not going to give you an alternate fuel to sell to other nations.
And all of your personal attacks against individuals.
Shall I start reporting all your anti American rants as bigotry.
You better be careful Oz, you have a past history that is easy to find of doing the same if not worse.
You can't provide stats to back up your arguments.
You didn't answer my answers on the amount of time. Your's response was as you accused me, nothing but personal opinion. NOTHING ELSE. I provided figures to support mine.
Both number of years and cost.
Your argument as you are Oz. Is straight up Bull Sht.
Your anti American rants will be from this point froward flagged as bigotry.
Your personal attacks, just like you did against Tony will be flagged as spammed.
Fk you oz.
Your an idiot.
Read my first post..
Me, I want both. And both of those boobs want to heal america. Yea, if so. How about agreeing to do both. Cap the bloody speculators, open up drilling, and give incentives to invest in alternate energy.
I want development of alternate fuels. Nowhere did I state or otherwise insinuate that this country would be energy independent with oil.
Quit making things up Oz. Your not even good at it.
And Oz, your the only one talking about ANWR.
Did you fall off the topic somewhere Oz. Did you not realize that drilling has been suggested in many area's? Off shore drilling, ANWR? What about the Colorodo shale deposits. Just because it's not cost effective now, doesn't mean that technology can't make it so. By not opening them up, we will never know.
Isn't that what your country did Oz. Canada? Develop the technology when it was not cost effective? Now it is?
What you anti American. It's ok for your nation to do things and not others.
Your anti American.
Your a hypocrite for reporting me for spam and personal attack when you have a past history of doing the same.
You just left yourself open for the same type of reporting Oz. I can't wait till the next time you go on your little rants and call all Americans stupid. Or call people aholes because you don't agree.
The spam button and reporting procedures await what past history shows happens on a regular basis by you.
So Oz. Put up or shut up.
You provide nothing in your arguments but your opinion(that's what you accused me of, remember). You use a double standard when people attack your position when you are known by all to use the same type of attacks.
So Oz... Stay in Canada, stay being a bigot.
Stay the fk away from me.
Fkn bigot
Fkn hypocrite
[edited to add] You notice the only thing that Oz flagged as spam was where I provided figures? Go figure... When I provided numbers to back my position, he pu$$ed out and cried for mommy.
It wouldn't be the first time but you will be shown a great difference.
Instead of, as you choose to do, saying fk you Dan, or you are a fkin idiot. I'll simply prove you wrong, or comment that your assertions are retarded. An personal negative view of your country is not a problem, calling you retarded because you are American is.
You really need to start understanding what you read.
the numbers and "FACTS" yuo rpesented were all complete crap. I haven't said two words about Electric or hybrid cars, I haven't mentioned anything about it, so your claims and support are for nothing, you are supporting a non argument.
When you learn to comprehend a bit better perhaps you'll be up for the task, as for now, just click that spam link and waste some of Tammy's time.
have a great day.
I don't call people here aholes, I don't tell people to fk off, I don't tell people they are fkin idiots, YOU do that, not me.
The reason your post was removed had nothign to do with the numbers, the numbers you reported had nothign to do with anythign i've said anyway. You were ranting on about how long it takes to create a battery for an electric car and how much it takes to build hybrid cars. Now if yuo can also go back and show me where I suggested EITHER electric cars OR hybrid vehicles in ANY of my posts here, I'll grant you that one, but you can so yuo have NO argument.
Its no different than me correcting you by going on about the oil drilling figures in Saudi Arabia, it is simply irrelevant as NOBODY has been discussing anything to do with it...wee, except you.
Here's an excercise, as you seem to like digging for nothing, go back and find all of these offensive posts where I have used similar terms to describe people as you did in your last post. That'll keep you busy for some time, I'm sure. there's a difference between claiming someoen's opinion sounds idiotic and callign someone a fkin idiot as you have done again in yoru last post, but I'll let that one go, you clearly aren't playing with a full deck at this point. Oh, quick report that as spam!
Don't bother, it's not the same at all, not in the smallest way.
You didn't prove me wrong. You didn't even address time lines with regard to my position or cost.
Where oh where oz did you prove me wrong.
idiot again comes to mind.
bigot just from watching every comment you make to every american that disagree's with you.
Just in this thread.
Oz, stay in canada. Your not smart enough to be in USA.
Don't tell me to f-k off and then call me buddy, your buddy I am not.
You asked questions and spewed on and on about topics I hadn't even mentioned, why would I waste ANY MORE effort with you? Especially providing answers to questions that I have NO idea what you are on about.
As far as being too stupid to be in teh USA, that must be it. You are very clever, I am sure that makes a lot of sense.
yup, got a brainy one here alrighty! With a little education and a lot of BS, you can too become president of the USA.
Why waste your time here, you must be one of them thar fancy book lernin' ones, aint ya?!
1). You responded to a comment I made to someone else, my points have stayed on topic. You disagreed. You called them opinions only. You offered nothing to prove your rant was anything else but opinions. You got defensive when I pointed out figures to support my position. You offered nothing in return. As usual.
Your only comment that even REMOTELY addressed my position was Brazil. Guess what you moron. It was not a democracy. I said 30 years. Did you read your own article and link Oz. How many years did it take for them to convert over.
Your wrong. Your biased. Your a bigot.
2). You miss quoted me and didn't have the guts to admit it. You put my comments, my position completely out of context to meet your own biased agenda. My position stated from the START was more drilling AND alternat fuel sources. No where did I divate from that position. You spun the argument off, I can't help it your not smart enough to keep up.
3). You want to push me oz on turning you in for biggoted, aragont, off color posts? I'll just go back to this weekends posts and how you personally attacked other members who disagreed with you. I will just point to your posts that showed a biggoted oppinion about american citizens. I will just point to posts here that show the same. Then oz, I will go back through just a month's worth of your biased biggoted posts to show a history. And offer to go back further.
Go for it Oz. Take your leap.
Your a liar. Your a bigot. And your a hypocrit. You wont back up your positions with source material, but you expect others to. You personally attack people, but get defensive when others do it to you.
You make comments in response to people that we are just spouse to take your word for. When others state their positions with out sources, you expect sources to support their position. You have double standards in every position you hold. You do NOT expect the same to be applied to you.
Again Oz... I give you 10 days. Count them you aragont prick. Until I can find more examples of you personally attacking, spouting your foul mouthed(see *****) responses to people that you disagree with, bigoted comments against US citizens no matter what the topic(religion, law, politics, or national policy). You will be completely aragont in that attitude and will get offended when you are called to the carpet on it for being so Anti American.
And Oz... I will report every single instance of these outbursts of yours. Because I find them offensive. I can point to posts where people felt you were offensive.
So Oz... Go for it... Be your normal biased, aragont, bigoted self. Your easy to read, your easy to prove wrong, and your easy to be shown for what you are.
I have yet to se esomeone so incorrect, so assumptive and so outwrdly ignorant to who he is and how he comes across in my 8+ years on TR.
the only mistake I keep making is that I find some reason to reply to you, whereas most others have already taken their ball away due to boredom, I' am still here trying to explain SOMETHING I have no idea what, to you. You're right, I must be stupid, to waste time with this crap.
2) misquoted what? Why don't you explain what you are bitchign abotu for once instead of just bitching.
3) Your comments were uncalled for, out of line with TR guidelines and completely your fault. You should know better, even this past post of yours should be removed, generally they don't let kids play here but in our case they have made an exception. See there's no need to call people foul names, you can always make your point somehow.
I have poor keyboarding skills, and they are getting better so I make fewer typos. however, you show a complete and utter inabilty to speak, spell or write a single conprehansive sentence. Yet you feel peoeple shoul dunderstand what yuo are saying? Yuo get offended when people don' tunderstand you?
And now you are going to do me a favour by giving me time? Don't make me laugh, let's make that 10 days into 15 seconds. Go for it, bring the world down around me.
"(1)Your a liar. (2)Your a bigot. (3)And your a hypocrit"
Post 1, Post2, Post3, please.
You can take all the time you want, I'm done wasting keystrokes on you.
My point: "You make comments in response to people that we are just spouse to take your word for. " Okay that one I can decypher, but a 'spouse' would be a wife or husband. I think you were trying to spell 'supposed'.
'Spoused' works in some hooked on phonics classes though I think. Just like 'axing' people questions.
I support sources when asked, I generally provide teh source when I copy one or speak from another source other than personal knowledge. If you are missing a link somewhere, specify which one next time instead of ranting away bewtween illiterate insults, again, I am done with your BS in this thread.
"When others state their positions with out sources, you expect sources to support their position."
that's the TR forums for you, catch up or be left behind. Usually, the only time I don't back a comment is when it is from personal knowledge, experience or opinion.
"Again Oz... I give you 10 days"
Stop it, now you're scaring me. I don't know what I should do, perhaps sell my notebook and sever my internet connection? Oh no, time is runnign out.
As I said before, don't bother giving me 10 days, unless you need more time to learn how to spell your post out, lets make it anytime you are ready, how's that for making your life easier?
Just don't expect me to read or take any interest in what you have to say from now on.
"Count them you aragont prick."
Now yuo see, THAT's where yuo keep screwing up, if you were more eloquent (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:eloquent&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title ) you'd have some credibilty and then when you submit your great list of harmful comments that will bring the fires of **** upon me, you'd actually have something to go on.
"bigoted comments against US citizens"
You know that old saying, "if the shoe fits wear it" and all that, you don't have to go so far out of your way to prove it to everyone, we know you are a bad example of an American and that it is your mindset and obvious lack of education that actually blackens America's name with the rest of the world.
"And Oz... I will report every single instance of these outbursts of yours. Because I find them offensive. I can point to posts where people felt you were offensive."
Take a number and have a seat.
I am completely free to offer my opinion on countries of the world, just as so many Americans offer their opoinoins of France, England, Canada, Iran, Iraq etc. There is no special exemption for Americans, though I know you feel there should be one.
"So Oz... Go for it... Be your normal biased, aragont, bigoted self. Your easy to read, your easy to prove wrong, and your easy to be shown for what you are."
Bias, there outta be a law! Anyone who shows bias is unacceptable, except yuo have done just that.
aragont, I assume you mean arrogant, sure I am arrogant. That's what makes me succesful in my line of work, I'm not a company drone who is forced into complacency by some company that sees me as a grudgingly necessary expense.
Bigoted: I find my opinions are supported and firm. I discount ridiculous posts such as the nonsense you spew here, but I show a lot of empathy for people who actually try to have a rational discussion.
Mind you, for a guy who can't spell or formulate a sentence worth beans, for a guy who thinks he is actually clever and doesn't see the constant hypocrisy in his own posts, I suppose it all makes sene, to you anyway.
You sure know how to make yourself look clever, don't you?
again, whine, *****, rant and complain away, compile a list of teh thousands of posts I've made that you don' tunderstand and submit them to poor Tammy for her review.
I would think that after reading your last post, she'd probably give it a full three seconds consideration, as that's all your worth at this point, you're definitely not worth anyone wasting their time over, and I think most people here already know that.
That is what is needed
Many of the alternatives do not suit
But a good choice would be hydrogen
Which can be easily produced by fixed energy sources
Weather based power will always be tricky
Solar power is a good choice for countries with deserts
But will need to be stored for night use
OIL is going to be a problem for along time yet
You can blame the car companies
They are the ones responsible for the problem
Can anyone tell me why there is only small numbers of alternative fuel cars on the market?
And no matter what oz says, that is a statistic world wide. Only one nation has moved totally to alternate fuels... And that was through Goverment mandate.
If the consumer wanted, no matter what nation, alternate fuel vechicles. They would be here. And they would be affordable... Because the consumer wanted it.
And think about this techno... If say the eurpoen nations were already alternate fuel... The manufacturing process would already be in place, and would only need to be increased. But that is not so. So, guess what... This manufacturing process has to be put in place.
So no matter what people like Oz have to say... This is a world wide issue... And people like oz, neil, and all the other environmentalist types are not willing to address the issue of price. How the average citizen, reading this oz... Any fkn nation. Can afford these vechicles.
Please see my post to oz concerning the prices in 2007 of hybrids... The average citizen, and I really don't give a crap what country. Can afford them. You can't supply the average citizen, no matter what nation. You will not move the nation to alternate fuels.
Again, something people like oz are unwilling to address.
You were not the one I was expecting to answer
One of the reasons car makers have shown little interest in the electric car and similar technology's
They worked out how much they would lose in parts
Eg oil filters
Not to mention the lesser need for the oil which is filtered
Shall we talk about tyres?
How long before we can forget about pneumatic tyres
How much fuel could be saved if every car did not have to carry round a spare wheel
But then you would only be buying four wheels
And that would affect profits
But I am sure the price of cars would go down
If you guys are going to argue about this
At least blame the right assholes for the problem
The Car Makers
Oh one more thing
Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is an idiot
And one more thing
Cars are sold worldwide so no one is off the hook
Including Canada and its population of critics
You see me asking a chit load of questions now don't you. Which the soposid know it alls refuse to answer.
So if your insinuating that I think I know all the answers, please think again.
[edited to add]damn, used IE for this post. No spell check. Sorry.
Some times part of my replies are addressed to other people who may read them
I did say you were not the one I expected to answer
That was stupid since it was you I replied to you
What I have noticed
Since a certain person join the discussion
The conversation has turned from possible solutions and observations
To the blame game
Gosh how clever lets blame someone that will get them listening to us
Some people cannot be helped
(That has more than one meaning)
One more thing
At least your spelling is readable
For some of the spelling I would need training in military code breaking to understand
Cheers Steve
Is that right now most alternatives (solar, cars, whatever) are just too damn expensive for the everyday joe.
And that was one of my major points as well.
I'm not going to play the blame game (even though I suppose I already have) because we're all to blame in some part.
However, my original rant was that until we all figure this out, the average everyday joe gets screwed (I suppose there is nothing new about this though).
I am a hardcore free market kind of guy. But there is something really wrong with life when the price of gas and food becomes so ridiculous that people have to choose between putting gas in their car and eating.
I just ask everyone this:
As we are all arguing back and forth, please keep in mind all the people less fortunate than you. To them, it isn't some mind exercise. It is their life.
I will ignore the one that just irritates me with his one cycle theme.
Back on track, that is exactly my problem with alternate fuels right now and the argument that we shouldn't drill... You need both being pushed to control costs so that the average citizen can afford to live. And nowhere do I see any of the groups which only advocate one approach(alternate fuels) addressing that. They are more then willing to point fingers and blame what ever group they are unhappy with, but they are unwilling or flat out just don't care to address cost concerns. Even to those that do advocate alternate fuels also. Because we are advocating a multi pronged approach to energy, we are fools. Or stupid.
Re One of Dan's Theme's
The blame game is pointless
The mistake being made is people are looking at only one problem and one solution
As I wrote in an earlier reply even the people who can afford the price rise can help
In fact those are the people who should be looking at alternatives
Because they can afford them
I had already cut back on the use of my car before much of the price rises
I actually did not use it at all for 2 weeks
I have very little need for a car
Most of the time I use it for travelling to someone else?s place to help with some problem they have
I can walk to the shops
The doc does go on about how much he wants me to walk
Re Rick, I appolgize for going off track
You really must stop letting the one get under your skin
Most of the BAD Oz is an act
He needs to feel better than others
You are letting him drag you down
Forget about that sort of loser they are so unimportant
Drilling is one of the many things that should be done
It will help in the future
Oil will always have its uses
As an emergency reserve power is one
It is very good for heating and cooking
Price and cost are relative
It depends on what you are measuring
Time at this moment is one of the most important
Cost is not always about money
Sometimes the cost is lives
Most of it has been covered already
So I wont repeat
One of the groups that want fast change is the greenies
Need I say more?
Well its 5:08 pm on a Thursday here in NZ
I am going to be busy tomorrow and Saturday
I am getting weary
So I may not be back till Monday
Increase the margin requirement won't solve the problem. The current margin is $4050 (www.nymex.com) per contract. A contract controls 1000 barrels therefore the margin is 4.05 per barrel or ~3%.
Increasing the margin requirements or decreasing the position limits will hurt the liquidity of the contracts which will increase the price swings both up and down.
Most traders believe that "the trend is your friend" and will long or short contracts accordingly. Professional investors and traders take emotion out of the equation, they don't care which direction oil moves just as long as it does.
The point being, if you punish the traders you punish the market. The futures market isn't going away, it serves a very valuable function. Investors don't cause price increases they react to the world around them.
What goes up, must come down; Spinning wheels gotta go round. Blood, Sweat, and Tears.
Regulation is the friend of no one, but deregulation has caused difficulties for many industries. Just about destroyed several.
Understand your point, but disagree.
As do almost all the experts.
For many, many years we had higher margin requirements. Then, shortly after those requirements were lifted the price of oil shot up.
Any fungible comodity from corn to beans to gold to oil is traded on a futures market.
Futures markets serve as a kind of breaking mechanism on market prices.
When a comodity's supply is disrupted or threatened, futures traders buy up stock in that commodity betting on the worst, which drives up prices to what they *think* they will be when the worst happens.
The affect you *see* is the prices rising.
The affect you *don't see* is what would happen if there was no futures trading here are some examples:
1)Far more rapid price jumps and drops.
2)Inconsistancy of supply; shortages and gluts
3)Greater economic instability.
A real life example of this was when Katrina hit the gulf coast. Gas prices skyrocketed overnight, there were rampant shortages, gas prices were wildly different from state to state and they yo-yoed up and down.
Rather than attacking the speculators, we should be attacking what they are speculating about.
when he wanted to pass laws if he becomes president to curtail speculating in oil.
If he's economically retarded and doesn't know the basics of markets or economics he shouldn't be president. If he is pandering then he knows better but is lying then he shouldn't be president either.
In either case this is a particularly stupid thing he suggested.
BTW I'm not a Republican.
either candidate is going to be bad for the country. Therefore maybe I should support Obama, because I think that'll greatly increase Republicans' chances in future elections.
Because I have standards in life, I can not vote for Obama, but I also can't vote for McCain.
It will be the symbolic third party wasted vote for me.
rack that 3rd party percentage up in every election, and maybe, just maybe, the Dems and Reps will get their heads out of their @sses as they watch the voters turning away from them.
I honestly don't expect third parties to ever be more than a spoiler.
After all, Ross got Clinton in office in the first place.
but if we're not in it for the long haul - our kids, their kids - why bother in the first place?
McCain is just to wrong on to many issues and Obama is just to wrong on all the issues.
America is a great country, and with your help, Obama will "CHANGE" that! And mindless drones are sucking that koolaid right up.
It will be interesting to see what the effects of white guilt and racism will have. His supporters don't realize it is just as stupid to vote for someone BECAUSE they are black as it is to vote for someone BECAUSE they are white. Color of skin is not a qualifier or a disqualifier, but people are willing to flush the nation down the drain to have the symbolic "first black president".
At least Mitt understood business and finances. Neither McCain nor Obama do.
if everyone who was sick of the big two voted 3rd party, we'd have 3rd party candidates elected en masse.
There isn't anything constitutional as far as I am aware about 2 parties in the US, but its hard, but not impossible to break the walls down and have more parties.
What you need to do is have string third party emerge at a time when one of the competing parties is divided and fractious. That had a chance of happening with Theodore Roosevelt who created the Bull Moose party and broke with the Republicans.
It did happen in Canada. After WWI we had a socialist party created which took some votes from the Liberals, and the Conservatives merged with the Progressive party (Teddy Roosevelt had headed a progressive movement in the US).
we just might get that perfect storm in four years, because both of these losers are going to screw things up so horribly that the US of A is going to be close to rebellion.
We have the choice, bad for the country or REALLY bad for the country, if we go with McCain or Obama.
Vote for Obama, the choice in terrorist nations.... literally.
Is Obama an appeaser if he says he wants to talk to Iran?
If so then I guess tricky **** was an appeaser too, because he opened up relations with China, who at the time had just undergone the "cultural revolution" and killed tens of thousands of doctors teachers etc. By the way, I don't like Nixon for the most part, but that was a lasting legecy that he doesn't get enough credit for.
There is a huge difference between attempting a dialogue and appeasing. If the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland though that they should never talk to their "enemy", they would still be killing each other.
Some former leaders quit the Taliban in Afghanistan when assured that they would get pardon and that free and fair elections would be held.
Look at Libya, former sponsor of terrorism.
Look at North Korea, tearing down their nuclear plant.
If you hold hard to the "never talk to the enemy" you miss lots of opportunities for peace.
I was referring to the people in the middle east that have set up call centers of their own to help get Obama elected, because his ideals match their own.
I am sure you saw the same reports?
I did hear on the radio about the Muslim groups in the US who are upset that they can't get any time with Obama. He seems to make time for Christians and Jewish groups but not Muslims. The hint is that he doesn't want to feed the rumour mill.
surprised you never saw this?
As for Obama refusing to see the muslim groups, I had heard that as well, since we have such a large muslim community in Michigan. Will he continue to discriminate if he gets into office or do we get to see the "real man"?
The way his positions are changing now, he IS starting to show he is just another washington politician. already.
Mentioned above: resources, resource war, resources required to fight war.
Nasty. Disagreeable. Number One.
I think we're heading to another great depression. I think there ARE people who are manipulating the world's economies... ALL of them... to their own end. Control of resources is just part of it... I think it's control of PEOPLE that is the goal.
Socialism is wrong. Liberalism is wrong. Ask yourself this:
Why aren't the people who are proposing that we all should live as paupers not doing so themselves?
Obviously they think they are better or more important than the rest of us, including those who they've duped into supporting them.
World war? I don't know about that... but there are some people that will need to be "put in their place" if anything remotely resembling personal liberty is to be had in the future, and there are people who are more than willing to put them there or die trying.
Prepare myself? Well, I have a garden, and some chickens, a good well and some canning supplies... Oh, and about 36,000 rounds of ammo so far :)
okay, its a heated rant, btu at least try to make some sense or offer a logical complaint.
Socialism is wrong. Liberalism is wrong.
So are democrats and republicans if you want to pick apart singular itens on an agenda. make sense for once.
"Why aren't the people who are proposing that we all should live as paupers not doing so themselves?"
Missed that article, please post a link or be more specific, such a blanket statement doesn't hold water.
"Obviously they think they are better or more important than the rest of us, including those who they've duped into supporting them."
Why? Who?
"personal liberty "
So you feel that it is your right to do as you please, there should be no laws or enforcement of such, there should be no essential community services such as healthcare, firedepartment, police force.
If people aactually WERE responsible, then we wouldn't have issues with resource management, would we. If we did, how would that be any different than the possible crisis that we are looking at today?
"Oh, and about 36,000 rounds of ammo so far"
Oh that'll be handy, been watching Deliverance? "git awf ma layand!"
Go sit by the crick and **** into your jug some more, Zeek. Billy Bob and Dusty's Boys will be along with the washboard, spoons and banjo shortly.
So you feel that it is your right to do as you please,
as long as I am not harming anybody else.
there should be no laws or enforcement of such, there should be no essential community services such as healthcare, firedepartment, police force.
Each should be responsible for his own health(care). Fire dept is infrastructure maintenance. Law enforcement is to investigate, try, and punish the reported violation of one's liberties by another.
If you (personally), think that I (personally), am violating one of your liberties, or are causing you any harm, then investigate, prosecute, and punish me (personally). Do not attempt to punish me for the alleged misdeeds of another person, unless you are willing to bear the consequences.
As this pertains to the subject, that means suing or taxing or fining a business is stupid, as all of the punishment is borne by the consumers, who are doing nothing except buying perfectly legal products or services in order to live their perfectly normal lives, and eventually, at least some of those consumers are going to react, in some cases fiercely, to what they see as blatant unfairness. Just be prepared is all I'm saying, because this is going to get dangerously close to many (more than you even have an inkling of) people's
definition of enough!
The reason something NEEDS to be forcced upon people is that people are NOT talking on their own responsibility to do something about it themselves.
If people were driving less, eating locally grown produce, using less heat and electricity etc. We would be seeing some benefit, but as long as there are people, such as yourself, who feel they won't act responsibly if they are forced to and yet don't act responsibly anyway, then there is a need to impose rules.
The issue is that people DON'T do anything about it, and I can't count the number of times people on here have said they do something about it when everyone else did too.
Well there you go, wanna do f-all? Fine, now you and everyone else has to do it anyway.
Lazy rock suckers.
The reason something NEEDS to be forcced upon people is that people are NOT talking on their own responsibility to do something about it themselves
Mixing people who are doing right with those who aren't is a recipe for a costly disaster. Obviously you don't see it, or don't believe it. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do about that but wait.
Always the best resolution, too bad you didn't have that insight/core value before the Iraq invasion.
People who are doing right? Which one?
You won't take action, YOU don't give a toss, YOU just want cheaper gas. You are at war, which drives prices higher. End of story.
People who are doing right? Which one?
The ones who ARE conserving and the ones who ARE creating alternatives.
End of story.
Nah, there are just pages missing from your copy of the book.
New Zealand
You know
Little islands in the south pacific
Our price for oil is going up
Nope wrong if I remember right
We sent some doctors and nurses
So that must be why it's up
And damn it we have one of the biggest oil fields off our coast
Ps don?t bother trashing New Zealand
The Aussies are much better at it than you North Americans
I didn't realize you weren't a Skank, you sure sound like one.
As for slamming New Zealand, why? What have you ever done?
?I didn't realize you weren't a Skank, you sure sound like one.?
So which side of the border is that?
You North Americans are all the same anyway what difference does a border make
Think yourself lucky our nearest neighbour is Australia
?As for slamming New Zealand, why? What have you ever done? ?
How rude
As if to say we haven?t done anything
Do you think we are a nation of under achievers?
No I don?t need to list the things achieved by New Zealanders
But the Internet is your friend
PS you don?t want to know what the Aussies call the Yanks
would not suffer from imposed guidelines for conservation.
Only the insufferable masses of psuedo-well-to-dos in this country who think having a Platinum or Centurion card is something that makes them better and gives them the right to spend and do as they wish.
Most people who conserve would just be living within the imposed standard that they already most likely have for themselves.
It's the selfish, wasteful, gluttonous, pious ilk who would whine and puke their speel about how they're being wronged.
I love vanity...it suits so many of the intellectually insignificant.
and who would set these standards and what would the standard be based upon?
Tell me again how you consider yourself conservative in any way, shape, or form?
I have determined that since you do not NEED it to survive, I am going to come take your amplifier and guitar, because they needlessly waste electricity. No dishwasher or powered lawn mower for you either. I have decided that you don't NEED them, and it is gluttonous of you to waste resources like that.
Having a house and an apartment is also wasteful, because you gluttonously need to have duplicates of many of the things in life we need to get through the day.
Lets shatter that glass house you are lording from. No one has any right to infringe on other peoples lives, as you have claimed you believed in before.
Stop and think about what imposed standards would mean and where it would lead. Where does it stop and who controls it?
People like you before the war said George Bush went to war for cheap oil.
Now, after the war started, you all say he did it to raise the price of oil.
Could you please make up your mind?
George Bush went to war for one main reason whether you agree with it or not and whether it was a good reason or not.
George Bush started this whole thing to prevent the Middle East from being nuclear armed along with biological, chemical, etc.
You do realize that there are some people in this world that would like to kill you simply for the fact that you are not a Muslim right?
and who would set these standards and what would the standard be based upon?
a panel of reasonable people...and hopefully, not a government agency.
I still can't believe you and Tony espouse that it is ok for you to do whatever you want to do even if it pollutes or causes others discomfort or inconvenience.
Tell me again how you consider yourself conservative in any way, shape, or form?
I don't go driving when I want, drinking when I want, smoking when I want, and don't go thinking i can do anything I want whenever I want just because it's not illegal. That is true conservativism. Living by the minimum. Not being a free-spirit in every opportunity. Not indulging in everything i have the means to do.
I have determined that since you do not NEED it to survive, I am going to come take your amplifier and guitar, because they needlessly waste electricity.
I play acoustic guitars, Mr. Know-it-all lol steeeeeeeeeee-rike one!
No dishwasher or powered lawn mower for you either.
I don't have a dishwasher either Mr. Assumption ...steeeeeeeeeeee-rike two !
BTW...I'll give up my lawnmower as soon as all golf clubs and bars shut down in your area. They're unnecessary too. lol
I have decided that you don't NEED them, and it is gluttonous of you to waste resources like that.
2 of 3 things you assumed were wrong. I guess I'm 3 times more efficient as you thought. I expect and apology. Thank you. lol
Having a house and an apartment is also wasteful, because you gluttonously need to have duplicates of many of the things in life we need to get through the day.
#1) I had to take this job. I needed the money. I have to buy a car sometime, since mine is 8 years old and they do not know why it is running bad. I have made it last as long as I could. Sorry that doesn't meet your expectations
#2) Actually, having a house and an apartment is for more green and efficient than me running 85 miles each direction 5-6 days per week. I have everything shut off in my house during the week, save for the AC that I set to 83 (solely to prevent mold growing in there that could KILL ME...but i guess you'd like me dead).
I now drive 10% of what I used to when I first started here, and I make sure that things are powered off and the least amount of power is consumed when I am not in residence at one of them.
Lets shatter that glass house you are lording from. No one has any right to infringe on other peoples lives, as you have claimed you believed in before.
Sounds like someone peed in your cereal...and, my glass house is safety glass...so throw away at it! lol
How am I infringing on your life, if I have to live by the same standard as you?
If a guideline is set by a body who analyses and determines a correct path, it is across the board...fair to everyone. So long as it is a reasonable standard, then why do you have a bone up your butt about it? Are you afraid it might cramp your life just a little? That you might actually have to...CHANGE?? *gasp!*
Stop and think about what imposed standards would mean and where it would lead. Where does it stop and who controls it?
Well, it couldn't be anywhere worse than where we are now, JD.
Look at what letting corporate America run footloose with our economy has done to our country:
-Housing glut
-Poor economy
-Higher unemployment
-Highest home foreclosure rate in over 20 years
-People losing jobs left and right
Corporate America took advantage of the housing market 5-6 years ago. Home prices skyrocketed. Then 3-4 years ago, it started to tank. They ran with their profits, often leaving consumers stranded. Now, they have their monies. And many people got sold into a corner.
Corporate America has exploited the oil market. There are millions of gallons of refining capacity available in the USA, but oil companies don't want to spend a penny of their 4 years of record breaking profit to upgrade them and refine more. That doesn't benefit them.
Corporate America exploited the mortgage market. Corporate lenders went out and made loans to people who they knew could not afford them, and now after they've taken 2-4 years of their money they are foreclosing on them and taking the property back. They haven't lost a thing, but the consumer has lost everything.
So tell me again, JD:
why should i trust business more and let them set the standards for pricing in my life since they have been screwing me and you so bad for the past 5 years and who i have no say so on who runs it, instead of my government who i vote into office and has to represent all people?
I think your view is distorted. You seem to believe that personal indulgence is a freedom. It's not. It's a privilege. Just like that driver's license you get issued. Just like the copy of Microsoft running on the computer. And, abusing privilege often gets them revoked.
You seem actually scared and (surprisingly) paranoid about government actually setting standards to try and improve the way of life that doesn't directly benefit you greatly.
Are you really that scared of change?
Do you really think that government is going to botch things up any worse than American business has done to our country?
Honestly...just sit back and think about it:
How free are you to go out and spend your disposable cash now at the end of the Bush administration's tenure after letting corporate America prosper while most working individual Americans have been made to suffer financially?
Were you having to spend as much at the end of Clinton's administration when the national budget was in balance and unemployment was at one of it's lowest times in history?
I'd rather let government consult educated individuals from a wide array of talents and determine a right path for our country, than to entrust selfish, money-hungry, capitalist business persons who have no motivation other than to create a schema for the American way of life that will most benefit them monetarily.
I put people before money or self-indulgence.
I DO have a RIGHT to what I decide brings me happiness, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
You do NOT have a right to infringe on others.
The basis of our country, dude.
And you know very well that there is no group out there that is going to save us without putting forth their own selfish agendas. Junk science, emotions, and guilt are not a license to rule.
Politicians are not to be trusted, which is why there are so many limits to what they can do.
If you choose to turn yourself into a shut-in out of guilt or shame, that is your choice.
mold, do you run a de-humidifier to help with that? The dampness combined with heat, right?
People who are conserving would not suffer from imposed guidelines for conservation.
It depends on how it's implemented, and how you define conserving. Almost everything I've seen proposed will increase the tax on fuel, which will be detrimental to the less than wealthy who are more than likely already minimizing their optional fuel usage, while allowing the likes of Al Gore to continue flaunting his hypocrisy by burning up 45,000 gallons of jet fuel every month.
[sorry, hit submit too soon]
It's the selfish, wasteful, gluttonous, pious ilk
How do you propose to define these terms? and under what legal concept?
were based on the escape from tyranny and being downtrodden and the right to a better life. not to behave however gives you the most benefits and fun.
i guess you get persecuted for your religion daily, eh?
I DO have a RIGHT to what I decide brings me happiness, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
True. I guess you've never infringed on anyone else's rights tho. right? ever speed? ever had just one beer and drove? ever had a piece of trash **** out of your car and not stopped to pick it up? those all infringe on other's rights. both legally and morally.
You do NOT have a right to infringe on others.
True too.
The basis of our country, dude.
No, the basis of our country is our constitution...which also states in its very roots that we endeavor to:
"...establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."
Guess you and all the "let me do what i want" folks aren't so patriotic after all, are ya? ME ME ME = against the founding principle of creating a more perfect union.
And you know very well that there is no group out there that is going to save us without putting forth their own selfish agendas. Junk science, emotions, and guilt are not a license to rule.
Nope, but I think an assembled panel of people from various different parts of professional, educational and government areas could come together and make the best informed decision.
You seem to think I want to put it in the hands of one special interest. That's not what I want. I want government to get information from educated, credible people. Not just from PACs and SIGs and lobbyists.
Politicians are not to be trusted, which is why there are so many limits to what they can do.
To quote Carlos Mencia: DUR DUR DURRRRRRRRR! That goes without saying. lol
If you choose to turn yourself into a shut-in out of guilt or shame, that is your choice.
I'm not a shut-in. I just don't think I should indulge my every whim just because I have a job and earn a paycheck. Lots of Americans work, and I have no more right than them to pollute and use resources and create refuse.
And just because I don't go and paruse bars for women every time I have a free minute doesn't mean I am a shut-in.
It means I'm not a **** like you!! lol j/k hehe
mold, do you run a de-humidifier to help with that? The dampness combined with heat, right?
running a dehumidifier in florida is like the captain trying to save the titanic by scooping out water...with a Dixie cup.
There are forms of mold here that, if they infect your lungs, you have a 75% chance of dying. Hence, why I run my AC. It keeps them from ever growing and me from being worm food lol
It depends on how it's implemented, and how you define conserving. Almost everything I've seen proposed will increase the tax on fuel, which will be detrimental to the less than wealthy who are more than likely already minimizing their optional fuel usage, while allowing the likes of Al Gore to continue flaunting his hypocrisy by burning up 45,000 gallons of jet fuel every month.
but by the same token, you say that being able to do what you want and prosper in your life is okay.
isn't okay for al gore to prosper too?
How do you propose to define these terms? and under what legal concept?
those that every other proposed term has been defined under...law.
"I still can't believe you and Tony espouse that it is ok for you to do whatever you want to do even if it pollutes or causes others discomfort or inconvenience."
If you believe I (personally) am harming you, or violating your rights, take legal action against me (personally). It's called Due Process. Prove that I am doing something wrong before you attempt to penalize me. Otherwise, my rights are being violated.
The IRS never has to file against you in court to penalize you. You should sue them.
BTW, not everything that is wrong to do, say, or entice is part of a process of tort. It's part of that personal responsibility thing, not legal code.
Hence, why I guess you don't understand it. Everything that is wrong is only what is written in a lawbook and will get you a fat settlement in court.
For Techno Rat: sorry but there's just too much to post to here now, the focus of teh topic is long dead and people are just arguing fo rteh sake of arguing. If peopl ewere actually debating stats and figures, showing relevant issues etc. it would be different but there are a coupe here that are just a pure waste fo anyone's time to even try and open up discussion with.
But for you: "You North Americans are all the same anyway what difference does a border make"
You need to get outside once in a while, there is a MASSIVE difference between Canadians and Americans, as recognized worldwide, except in some parts of New Zealand I suppose.
"?As for slamming New Zealand, why? What have you ever done? ?
How rude
As if to say we haven?t done anything
Do you think we are a nation of under achievers?
No, that is just YOUR interpretation of what was said, you simply read into it what wasn't actually there. I said, "Why, what have you done?"
Did you do something wrong that we should all know about?
Are you just upset that I am missing a valuable flaw in your country?
No I don?t need to list the things achieved by New Zealanders
But the Internet is your friend
It most certainly is, unless I spend three days talking in circles with people who simply argue due to misunderstanding what they read, not yourself in that case but some of the others that are simply tiring.
This is so far off base onw that i am arguing fuel compenents with someone who admittedly knows nothing but insists I am wrong even when postign links to facts. Some people just have to argue for the sake of arguement, even when they have nothing relevant to contest.
You forgot
People have to be offered a choice for them to be able to make a decision
Some will need to have the choices pointed out
They usually complain when they are given no choice or an unfair choice
So hows it going in Canada
Everyone cutting back are they?
Shame on you and your country selling oil to someone else
That is exactly the problem
You are enabling the yanks
Bad Bad people
Actually yes, there is a massive awareness and cutback on resource waste. It has become a way of life for most now, one which is rarely even considered now. As for driving and gasoline, the city is full of bicycle commuters that were once drivers, our sky train expansion has kept several hundred thousand cars off the streets every rush hour, it is actually getting much better now. Thank you for your considerate thoughts.
We have a reliance on US money and resource sharing. We ship them grains, they pay us money. We ship them lumber, they pay us money. We ship them fish, they pay us money. about the only fair trade off is power, they can't shut down nuclear generators in California, so we buy their power at night and shut down our own hydro dams. In they day, we sell our hydro to California to make up for eh slack in their nuclear plants. It only sicks when they use too much power in the day and WE get a water warning. BC has more lakes and rivers than pretty much anywhere, we have massive glacial run offs and an abundance of water, even when there's a shortage warning, we still have full reservoirs. The problem is they are saving that water to run hydro to California in the daytime. Shucks.
Actually our government has bent over enough that the US corporations just come and help themselves now, they don't even pay the tariffs they imposed and they've put our own forestry and fishing industries out of business. niiiice.
yup, bad, bad people. But I didn't vote, I'm not Canadian, I'm just in it for the nice view.
Good to read the stuff about conservation
We have a lot of the same things happening here
But some of our city councils were very stupid in the past
Public transport is a joke
Auckland our largest city has no subway
What makes it worse is our cities are very large in size but small in population
One day they will go up instead of out
Well I can hope
We have no nuclear power plants
Our main supply is hydro electric
We use to have coal and geothermal power stations
We are expected to have power cuts later this year
The reason is low levels of water in the Dam lakes
Funny thing is we have had rain every day for about the last week
In the past we had cars that were converted to run on CNG (methane) and LPG (butane)
My car at the time ran on CNG
But most of the tanks have gone over seas now
Its is a shame we have more than enough in this country
But we still import so much
Let me guess you come from the UK
Now there's another?
I don't mind reading your comments, I have just grown so tired of this topic as it is way off track now.
There are people who admit to knowing nothing, that simply contest facts for the sake of argument, it happens here a lot and yoo just have to leave it behind after a while.
Yes UK, originally.
Now what is the favourite English past time?
Nope not soccer something else
Cricket? No there is something else
Well its not important
You know the answer anyway
Ps don?t get smart and say sex the rest of the world knows you lot hardly ever get it
As this pertains to the subject, that means suing or taxing or fining a business is stupid, as all of the punishment is borne by the consumers, who are doing nothing except buying perfectly legal products or services in order to live their perfectly normal lives, and eventually, at least some of those consumers are going to react, in some cases fiercely, to what they see as blatant unfairness. Just be prepared is all I'm saying, because this is going to get dangerously close to many (more than you even have an inkling of) people's
definition of enough!
you don't want to tax a business?
how do you pay for police then? go down and write a check to them? and your firemen? or roads maintenance? or your kid's school?
taxing a business is sensible to maintain that "infrastructure" you mentioned.
Fining business for anything illegal or improper is the only way to make them pay. What else do you do? Take away a gold star off the board of life for them?
BTW, the premise of "each should be responsible for his own health(care)" is a predicate to making healthcare cost based on income. Otherwise, you'd be dooming everyone who couldn't make an average living to certain death if they catch pneumonia, mononucleosis, etc.
Are you saying the poor should just die off, Tony?
That's real human and intelligent.
BTW...if I were to sit and drink around your kid(s), it would not harm them or you in any way.
Can I do that? Swearing in front of them? Telling dirty jokes?
My...I am starting to like this liberation thing. I think I'll go get me some crack and a hooker tonight, since that doesn't hurt anyone else. lol
you don't want to tax a business?
I don't Every cent of corporate tax is paid by the consumers, the only possible reason for the continuation of this sham is the "taking advantage" of the ignorance of consumers.
Taxing consumers directly will allow them to more accurately see what their government is costing them, perhaps allowing them to apply appropriate pressures to bring those costs down. Companies also have to pay someone to figure out all the tax codes and everything, and the cost of THAT is also included in the cost of the product or service.
Fining business for anything illegal or improper is the only way to make them pay. What else do you do? Take away a gold star off the board of life for them?
Companies don't do wrong things, PEOPLE do! Fining a company doesn't put the punishment where it belongs. The fine, like taxes, was included in the cost of the product or service and passed along to the consumer. When you fine a company, or sue a company, or tax a company, you are fining, suing, or taxing the consumer!
BTW, the premise of "each should be responsible for his own health(care)" is a predicate to making healthcare cost based on income.
No, the cost to fix a broken leg should not be different for a rich person than for a poor person.
Otherwise, you'd be dooming everyone who couldn't make an average living to certain death if they catch pneumonia, mononucleosis, etc.
We can bring the cost of health care down without making one person responsible for the costs of another (there may be an argument for SOME exceptions). For example, if you choose to smoke, you do NOT have the right to impose the costs of your cancer treatments on me.
The REASON costs are so high is that we've lost all sense of personal responsibility. ("The insurance will pay for it.") Bring back the responsibility, and costs will fall into line. I would also recommend banning companies from paying for employees' health insurance. Better to give THAT money to the employees, and let them buy their own. This will increase competition in the insurance industry, bringing down prices.
Are you saying the poor should just die off, Tony?
The poor die all the time. I have the right to CHOOSE to help do something about that, but I have no OBLIGATION to help anyone except for the ones I brought into the world.
BTW...if I were to sit and drink around your kid(s), it would not harm them or you in any way.
Can I do that? Swearing in front of them? Telling dirty jokes?
Depends on where you are. If you are on MY property, you will behave as I require, or you will leave or be ejected. If you're on TV, I can turn the set off or change the channel. If you are in public, I can simply walk away from behavior or speech I do not approve of.
I think I'll go get me some crack and a hooker tonight, since that doesn't hurt anyone else. [edit: fix italics]
Go for it. I think drugs and prostitution should be legal for adults. I'm not going to pay to have your crotch critters exterminated though :)
The poor die all the time. I have the right to CHOOSE to help do something about that, but I have no OBLIGATION to help anyone except for the ones I brought into the world.
I really hope and pray you never lose your job, lose your insurance, and have your child(ren) get sick.
My parents (both working) had my brother get sick. Even with medical insurance, his brain cancer ate through the maximums.
He died, even with insurance. And, my parents were $110k in the hole for over 20 years.
I hope it doesn't take something like that for you to see having a common good for everyone is not a bad thing.
I wish you well. You need it with desires to run a country like that.
to impose costs which "others" have no control over onto those "others". By what theory is it OK for you to, for example, have children and impose their health care costs onto others?
Why then, would not those "others" have a right to limit if and how many children you could have, in order to control their costs?
What? you don't think that's reasonable? Well that's the problem when you get rid of personal responsibility and replace it with mob rule. When you vote to take away liberties that you don't like from some people, you give them the right to take away liberties they don't like from you. Your ox just hasn't been gored... yet!
[Do you really believe] you have the right to impose costs which "others" have no control over onto those "others". By what theory is it OK for you to, for example, have children and impose their health care costs onto others?
Do I have the right? Of course not. That is the function of government to establish that system. Not me.
By what theory is it okay? The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
Let me remind you exactly what it says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Read it...that's the principle that our country was FOUNDED ON: promoting the general welfare of the country.
If you don't like it, I invite you to move to another country. But, don't act like going against the constitution of my nation is okay for you to do because you decide it's what interests you most.
Why then, would not those "others" have a right to limit if and how many children you could have, in order to control their costs?
Because I have no kids. You can't limit what's not there.
Plus, I can (and just might) move to another country at some point in the future. I'd be glad to take my 10's of thousands per year I pay in all sorts of taxes to another country where I am better represented and accepted.
What? you don't think that's reasonable? Well that's the problem when you get rid of personal responsibility and replace it with mob rule. When you vote to take away liberties that you don't like from some people, you give them the right to take away liberties they don't like from you. Your ox just hasn't been gored... yet!
You've never shown me an example yet of how allowing personal freedom to enter the stage of extreme materialism and wasteful excess is a personal responsibility. As I said before, it's personal indulgence and not freedom or liberty.
And my ox won't ever have to be gored, because i don't fatten my ox up as a target for being butchered like some folks.
You espouse that "personal freedom" and "liberty" means "do whatever I want and when I want as long as it is not illegal".
Well, I can tell you all day "I think you're a m*****f***er." and "I think you like to have sex with kids." and that's totally legal. Why? Cause, it's my right to express my opinion of you. And, that's constitutionally protected.
However, I don't think either thing. And, I have more personal responsibility over myself than to act like a social retard and do obtuse, irresponsible, and mindlessly heinous actions.
I'm an adult, and I do my best to act like one, and not like some spoiled kid who can do or say what they want just because they have some wealth or gift others don't.
Again, I wish you well. Allowing personal freedom to lead to anarchy and extremist activities is what has brought down many a great empire.
As I said before, it's personal indulgence and not freedom or liberty.
Is it a "personal indulgence" to have a child? How about 9 children? Should the government then limit this?
Does the definition of "personal indulgence" ever change? With the times, perhaps?
You've never shown me an example yet of how allowing personal freedom to enter the stage of extreme materialism and wasteful excess is a personal responsibility.
Well, I do not presume to be qualified to force a definition of those things on anyone but myself, but here's a real-world example of what I'm talking about...
We get 10 sick-days a year. A few people abused their sick leave, and management wanted to do something about it, so a couple of years ago, they instituted a new policy where days after the 5th day are paid at 70%. The result, everyone is being treated like they're sick leave abusers, even though the majority haven't done anything wrong.
I call it the "Little Johnny got caught chewing gum in class so EVERYONE has to stay in from recess" form of legislation. It's abhorrent!
And my ox won't ever have to be gored, because i don't fatten my ox up as a target for being butchered like some folks.
Ah, but someone may have a personal grudge against skinny oxen, and convince his friends to petition their legislators to outlaw them.
"You espouse that "personal freedom" and "liberty" means "do whatever I want and when I want as long as it is not illegal".
Not quite. Change "is not illegal" to "does not harm another person or violate another person's rights, with determinations to be made through due process, as is guaranteed us via the fifth amendment ('... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...')", and you'd have it.
However, I don't think either thing. And, I have more personal responsibility over myself than to act like a social retard and do obtuse, irresponsible, and mindlessly heinous actions.
So you're allowed to determine your "personal responsibility" for yourself, but others are not? Are you trying to take over as dictator or king?
Maybe your first act should be telling Al Gore to stop using more fuel in a week than 10 average people do in an entire year! (or is that OK because he's buying carbon credits?)
Is it a "personal indulgence" to have a child? How about 9 children? Should the government then limit this?
only in the sense that if you can not provide for the welfare and health of the child, it is taken away.
if a woman wants to **** her uterus out by havin 50 kids, let her. no one made her. just like no one makes you smoke.
Does the definition of "personal indulgence" ever change? With the times, perhaps?
yes...as does personal responsibility evidently.
Well, I do not presume to be qualified to force a definition of those things on anyone but myself,
but you'll force everyone else in the world to have to accept that the minority of others pollute the world unnecessarily for everyone else...just because...they have the money to afford the "personal responsibility" of having something detrimental to the quality of life for others?
but here's a real-world example of what I'm talking about...
We get 10 sick-days a year. A few people abused their sick leave, and management wanted to do something about it, so a couple of years ago, they instituted a new policy where days after the 5th day are paid at 70%. The result, everyone is being treated like they're sick leave abusers, even though the majority haven't done anything wrong.
I'd say to contact the US Department of Labor. That sounds like unfair workplace practice, as well it violates your agreement as a (I assume you are) salaried/exempt computer professional by law. They can not dock your pay because you took sick leave by law. Go to http://www.dol.gov and check it out. I believe you all have a case for a federal suit, if they don't change their policy.
I call it the "Little Johnny got caught chewing gum in class so EVERYONE has to stay in from recess" form of legislation. It's abhorrent!
And, my first name is John and I find your stereotyping "John"s as miscreants offensive! lol
Ah, but someone may have a personal grudge against skinny oxen, and convince his friends to petition their legislators to outlaw them.
Sounds like you have a self-esteem issue hating my skinny ox lol
Not quite. Change "is not illegal" to "does not harm another person or violate another person's rights, with determinations to be made through due process, as is guaranteed us via the fifth amendment ('... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...')", and you'd have it.
So...driving that super inefficient or higher than most at spewing exhaust and atmosphere polluting contaminates oversized vehicle does not infringe on my right to have reasonably clean air? How do you figure?
So you're allowed to determine your "personal responsibility" for yourself, but others are not? Are you trying to take over as dictator or king?
No, I have common sense. And, I don't think that personal responsibility means "just taking care of me". I think it means "making sure I am doing right in every way I reasonably can".
Buying a Humvee when all you need is a Volkswagen Jetta isn't a personal responsibility. That's hubris and self-indulgence and vanity-fed egotism.
And, allowing that kind of selfish materialism to be a staple of "The American Way of Life" actually contributes to inflicting increased duress on people with respiratory ailments as well as causing other detrimental environmental factors.
But, I guess they should just suffer because they are genetically inferior.
Maybe your first act should be telling Al Gore to stop using more fuel in a week than 10 average people do in an entire year! (or is that OK because he's buying carbon credits?)
Actually if I met Al Gore I'd commend him on his work to bring environmental causes to the forefront for debate and study.
But, I would definitely ask him why he and Tipper have not down-sized since all their children are now out of the house and they no longer need a huge home.
As well, i'd ask him why he hasn't put a large wind farm at his home since he is in an area that he could derive wind power from most of the year.
I'd also ask him what kind of car he uses, and why he wasn't on the list with people like Jamie Lee Curtis and Christoper Guest to get one of the new hydrogen fuel cell cars if he's such a proponent of reducing eliminating fossil fuel use.
Trust me...I don't let anyone off easy just because they talk good talk.
That sounds like unfair workplace practice, as well it violates your agreement as a (I assume you are) salaried/exempt computer professional by law.
I am not management. I am under the bargaining unit, and the union agreed to it (even though I refused to join the union, I am still bound by their agreements, and they get a portion of their dues from me as a "fair share payment").
So...driving that super inefficient or higher than most at spewing exhaust and atmosphere polluting contaminates oversized vehicle does not infringe on my right to have reasonably clean air?
... to be determined by due process!
Buying a Humvee when all you need is a Volkswagen Jetta isn't a personal responsibility.
Now you're talking about socialism.... Equality through cutting off the legs of anyone who dares stand up. Should we outlaw everything that you decide is not "all you need"? What then, would be the point of existence? Are the earth's resources really so used up that you have to start rationing them? This was the point I was making about the children. If you believe the resources are in that bad of shape, then you must agree that from now on, anyone having even one child violates the rights of everyone else. Are you prepared to do something about that? I don't think you are.
I am not management. I am under the bargaining unit, and the union agreed to it (even though I refused to join the union, I am still bound by their agreements, and they get a portion of their dues from me as a "fair share payment").
That makes sense...contractual obligation. You agreed to give up that right, which means you're not exempt.
... to be determined by due process!
Nah, because "The American Way of Life" nowadays is about selfishness and ego and materialism. We pursue the unnecessary out of vanity and desire to be better than the other guy for self-promotion and status, rather than to improve ourselves to make a
better me and we.
Hence, why I have looked for several years now at jobs in Europe. People there seem to have a real understanding of personal responsibility...that it's not just to self and family...but to your neighbors, town, county, country, and world. And, they seem to be more grounded as a whole.
At least, when they're not at football matches. lol
Now you're talking about socialism.... Equality through cutting off the legs of anyone who dares stand up. Should we outlaw everything that you decide is not "all you need"? What then, would be the point of existence? Are the earth's resources really so used up that you have to start rationing them? This was the point I was making about the children. If you believe the resources are in that bad of shape, then you must agree that from now on, anyone having even one child violates the rights of everyone else. Are you prepared to do something about that? I don't think you are.
No. See, you're wrong there. Socialism makes every live at the same social level. I would not restrict your income, ability to study, what food you could buy. I would just make life different.
And, change is evidently something you and jdclyde fear worse than a case of herpes.
And as I said before, I have no children. Moot point.
How many do you have? If I become dictator, are you ready to let me take them away? Give them to Madonna to raise?
Fact is, you make the assumption that the Earth's resources are anyone's to do with as they wish.
And in essence, your ideology of being able to do with the world as you wish and just going out and using and taking whatever you need because it will give you what you want...is just as bad as me finding the bag of money and not turning it in.
You, sir, are taking as much of something as you want when it does not really belong to you.
That is so selfish. It's as though you think that your paycheck entitles you to do anything with something that doesn't wholly belong to you...including doing things that fulfill your enjoyment but unnecessarily and negatively impact people around you...both near and far.
I don't set what others can do. I am fully aware of that. I know I can not change it. I wish I could. Things would be a bit different if I ran the world. For one, I'd already live in the Irish countryside and walk or take the bus or train or hire a taxi everywhere. No need for a car at all.
But, I think it is in the best interest of the general welfare (there's that darn phrase from the constitution again...jeez) of our country environmentally, economically, and socially, to be more prudent and responsible with how we use our resources and those we acquire from other countries.
While your view seems to be the "oh ****...it doesn't matter...as long as I'm happy and having fun" point of view.
The day they make a 35 mpg Humvee, I'll have no problem with it. I doubt that will ever happen. Even when gas is $6.
But the fact is, too many people have no idea of the word "need" really means, and too often confuse it with "desire" or "want".
It's nice that you wanna drive your kid around in an Escalade, but the fact is it's spewing out more pollutants than what a Kia Sorento would and does the same job, and that just screams selfishness and lack of respect and concern for how you affect your neighbors, fellow citizens, and the world in general.
If I spray paint a wall or pee in the street, I get arrested for it.
You drive a huge tank of a vehicle that pollutes more and contributes to damaging the world around you and decreasing enjoyment of that world for the people in your area, and that is okay because it's what you want...you get to go on your merry way because bigger is better in America.
So, can you please explain to me in definitive terms how again it is your right to unnecessarily contribute to diminishing the quality of life for me, your neighbors, your country, etc., all in the name of your desire to have a bigger, fancier car that you can brag about...when supposedly personal responsibility is an exercised quality, and is supposedly in practice and in place and used by Americans today?
I think you're very wrong. Personal responsibility here has gone to the wayside in most peoples' lives in lieu of self-indulgence and vanity and lack of respect for anyone's needs other than one's self.
That's why I am an advocate of government finding qualified, intelligent, educated, sensible people to research and inform them of everything that our modernization and industrialization is doing and negatively impacting everything around us near and far.
Then, government needs to set limits and guidelines and rules that will make us more personally responsible, since most Americans are too busy with thinking only of themself rather than to reflect and think and plan and do the best they can.
But...you're right. People like you and jd should pray I never become dictator. I'd make life different, and that would probably so hurt y