gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

In article >,
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" > wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > >
> > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Jeffrey Turner > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>If it's a public institution then it should be run democratically.
> > >>>>>>>>If
> > >>>>>>>>democracy is good for Iraq, it should be good for Wal*Mart.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Even laying aside the validity of the implication, it's
> > >>>>>>>counterfactual
> > >>>>>>>anyway. Democracy in Iraq would simply be a case of two wolves and
> > >>>>>>>a
> > >>>>>>>sheep voting on the dinner menu, only the sheep ain't quite so
> > >>>>>>>innocent and would eat the wolves if there were more of them.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>That's much too simplistic a take on Iraqi politics.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Do any of the complications change the shape of the outcome?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The Iraqis will eventually live together in peace if they are left to
> > >>>>do
> > >>>>so.
> > >>>
> > >>>Did you make that argument in the Balkans when Clinton was president?
> > >>
> > >>I wasn't paying attention to Clinton and the Balkans.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why is that? There was no vital US interest there.
> >
> > Honestly, I'm not up on the Balkans and have no real interest in
> > revisiting it now.
> >
> It has so little vital US interest, you don't even care? Yet you defend
> that military adventure but oppose the very valid efforts in the Middle
> East, where there are many vital US interests.
>
>
>
> > > If foreign forces
> > > were needed, the Europeans could've taken the lead with the US providing
> > > some assistance, not the bulk of it. Of course the Euro military is
> > > pretty pathetic, isn't it? It would've been better to expose that then
> > > and have them more ready now when we are all in a world war against
> > > terrorism.
> >
> > That's just silly propaganda.
> > http://youneed2see.com/political/57/..._of_Nightmares
> >
> This is a world war. It is different from the Cold War, really the third
> one, from the Second World War and from the First World War. In fact,
> all four of those wars were different from each other.
>
>
>
> > >>>>Considering it was Sistani who insisted on elections, and the U.S.
> > >>>>relented only after the resistance was forcing the issue, I think
> > >>>>they'll work out a democratic system. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been
> > >>>>pushing
> > >>>>a sectarian feud, but there was Sunni-Shi'a intermarriage before the
> > >>>>current situation and I suspect they'll end up working together more to
> > >>>>get rid of the al Qaeda outsiders once the Oceania outsiders leave the
> > >>>>country.
> > >>>
> > >>>This can't continue forever. That's why the US should continue to
> > >>>engage, not reason for the US to run away. As I keep saying, however, it
> > >>>might make sense for the Americans to "turn sideways" a bit and make
> > >>>themselves less of a target in Iraq. This doesn't preclude directed
> > >>>"surging" as needed, just don't send out patrols just to get attacked.
> > >>
> > >>The Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation has lasted an awfully
> > >>long time.
> > >
> > > Most Palestinians have never been even on the lands that they claim are
> > > supposedly theirs. They should read "The Grapes of Wrath" and accept
> > > what most people never get the opportunity, a very generous settlement.
> >
> > You talk to them, Abbas doesn't return my phonecalls.
> >
> You should try e-mail.
>
>
>
> > But it doesn't bode well for the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
> >
> I don't think there's some rule that Arabs have to respond as the Palis
> have.
>
>
>
> > >>And the U.S. doesn't have a sugar daddy paying its costs.
> > >>There are attacks against American bases, the U.S. isn't an innocent
> > >>bystander that can just lie low.
> > >
> > > The US could turn sideways providing more modest protections, say in
> > > Baghdad while working with the elected government to build up local
> > > control. If Shia stay in their own areas and don't go off murdering
> > > Sunni, then leave them alone at this point. Ditto for the other groups.
> >
> > The U.S. could do all sorts of things. Bush's latest idea was just the
> > opposite, go all out in trying to secure Baghdad. As far as I can tell,
> > the American troops are trying to work with trustworthy local leaders.
> >
> I think you might have to use different tactics in different areas.
> Controlling Baghdad is important because it's the capital and because it
> is where the Green Zone is. But as I've been saying, the Afghan model,
> even if it has problems, of using locals to control their own areas, if
> only to gain time for things to settle down, is a good idea. I said that
> the Americans should turn sides in Iraq, not leave, just reduce their
> exposure in general. If there are good reasons to get involved, of
> course, do so.
>
>
>
> > But al Qaeda has been stirring up sectarian violence for a while now,
> > including bombing the Golden Dome.
> >
> Al Qaeda is just crazy. Iraqis mostly knew that but I think some maybe
> didn't fully appreciate the Faustian bargain they were making. If they
> really want to live in ruins, they certainly can force that to happen.
>
>
>
> > I just saw a story about some Sunni
> > group going after them, though. But most Iraqis don't want the
> > occupation troops there, so that's going to cause problems until U.S.
> > and British troops are withdrawn.
> >
> It's not clear what most Iraqis want other than security. If the
> coalition forces can provide that, I think they will accept it. They
> were able to live under Saddam.
>
>
>
> > >> By the way, we've just had the
> > >>deadliest two-month period for the Americans in Iraq.
> > >
> > > And that's largely due to the surge, going off on lots of patrols where
> > > you can get attacked, or sussing out the enemy and attacking them.
> >
> > And the uptick in attacks on the Green Zone?
> >
> What does it take to pot shot the Green Zone? A mortar is hard to miss
> with when the target is that big. It would be nice if the US had got
> those laser systems ready so it could shoot that sort of thing down.
Can't they just use Firefinder to send steel to target?
It isn't rocket science. It's just artillery.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/an-tpq-36.htm

--
http://blogs.commercialappeal.com/bb...he_slaw_n.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...code=20060222&
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America http://www.iava.org/index.php
Vote in a Wonder: http://www.new7wonders.com/

In article .net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
>
> I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
> against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
> as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
> makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
> Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
>
> Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
> way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.

Why?

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article .net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>>http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
>>
>>I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
>>against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
>>as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
>>makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
>>Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
>>
>>Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
>>way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.
>
>
> Why?

Because it doesn't incentivise the average consumer to do anything but
whine about why their new cars cost so much and why they can't buy the
cars they really want. It puts all the burden of conservation on the
manufacturers, who are in no position to determine exactly what vehicles
consumers will buy or how they will use them.

Experience with CAFE has shown that a) American consumers, in general,
like large cars and b) if they can't get them, they will buy something
else that serves the same need (i.e. pickups and SUVs) generally to the
overall detriment of on-road fleet economy.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> > http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards

>> I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
>> against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
>> as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
>> makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
>> Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
>>
>> Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
>> way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.
>
> Why?

Because real conservation happens when people make the choices themselves
to conserve. The government is constructing regulations to prevent the
sale of vehicles certain people don't like. People who support it either
do so because they wish to control others, they want to pass the
conservation responsibility over to someone else, they think fuel economy
is magic of hidden/surpressed technology, or they are ignorant and it
just sounds good.

CAFE, passed in the 1970s nearly exterminated the 'gas guzzler', a large
passenger car. People tried the alternatives that met CAFE and then
quickly searched out alternatives that still did what they wanted and
began buying pickups and enclosed trucks like the bronco and blazer. The
automakers noticed and the rest most people know. A new higher CAFE is
going to have similiar results. We aren't going to like what comes of it,
not only how it drives design but how some people get around it by using
some other sort of vehicle. We will enter another automotive dark age.

>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> > http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
>>
>> I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
>> against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
>> as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
>> makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
>> Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.

Not likely. Bush wants the bill, even though he took an oath to defend the
borders.I hope the ******* drinks so much he fall's down a flight of stairs
and someone gets his drunken stupor on film.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
>
>
>
>>>I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
>>>against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
>>>as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
>>>makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
>>>Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
>>>
>>>Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
>>>way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> Because real conservation happens when people make the choices themselves
> to conserve. The government is constructing regulations to prevent the
> sale of vehicles certain people don't like.

You don't understand - Shawn WANTS more government interference in our
lives.

He doesn't believe in freedom. He doesn't believe people should be
allowed to make decisions for themselves because people do not always
act in their best interests (according to Shawn).

> People who support it either
> do so because they wish to control others,

That would be Shawn.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article .net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
> >>
> >>I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
> >>against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
> >>as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
> >>makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
> >>Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
> >>
> >>Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
> >>way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.
> >
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it doesn't incentivise the average consumer to do anything but
> whine about why their new cars cost so much and why they can't buy the
> cars they really want. It puts all the burden of conservation on the
> manufacturers, who are in no position to determine exactly what vehicles
> consumers will buy or how they will use them.
>
> Experience with CAFE has shown that a) American consumers, in general,
> like large cars and b) if they can't get them, they will buy something
> else that serves the same need (i.e. pickups and SUVs) generally to the
> overall detriment of on-road fleet economy.

SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
and coupes.

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:

> SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> and coupes.

No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
and foreign aid expenditures.

Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Shawn Hirn
> wrote:
>
> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> > and coupes.
>
> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
> and foreign aid expenditures.
>
> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.

That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
point there.

When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article >, Shawn Hirn
>> wrote:
>>
>> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>> > and coupes.
>>
>> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
>> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
>> and foreign aid expenditures.
>>
>> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>
> That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
> more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
> for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
> point there.

The chance of making CAFE work is MUCH less.

> When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
> mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
> companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
> making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
> offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.

Even though this is not relevant, the automakers had a well founded
logical argument but it's not what you say it was.

In the late 1950s Ford had made a big effort to sell safety and the public
didn't buy it. This told the automakers that selling safety was flop. The
big three also said that airbags were not wanted by the public and that
they would _KILL_ children and small adults. Guess what? They were
correct, the airbags do indeed kill people. How did they know this?
Extensive testing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. GM and Chrysler each
offered cars with airbags in the early 1970s and it was a rarely ordered
option.

You and your ilk are control freaks. Instead of letting me decide if I
wanted explosive devices in my car, you force them in there. Get out of
my life, get your government out of my life.

As for side impact beams, dual master cylinder brake systems, etc and so
forth, well times change, buyers wants change. Safety does sell now. All
the regulations could disappear and guess what? Those things would stay
in the cars because few people would buy them without.

What we need in this country is less regulation, less control, and a much
better educated and knowledgable public. That way, control freaks
would no longer have a place.