How to Lower Gas $'s

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]

Why don’t you look up what the CEO of FedEx is making? [/quote]

Fed Ex does not sell commodities or necessities. You don’t ever have to use a shipping company, ever, if you don’t want to. Chances are, you’ll need gasoline sooner or later. You will have to buy it from one of these cock suckers. Fed Ex can’t benefit from disaster, oil companies can.

The outrage stems from the fact that most of us have not choice but to buy gas, and the oil companies tell us to temper our lives to conserver it, yet they live more outrageously than anybody. The most the average American suffers, the more money they make. That just does not sit well with the public. It damn sure doesn’t sit well with me. The only people who should succeed off of suffering are undertakers.
They say they are investing billions in energy research, where are the results? What are they researching? They use such vague terminology and we are supposed to just go “Keep up the good work”. I say fuck you.

Also, it is they who want to keep us dependent on the terrorists. It CEO of Exxon said the other day that it is unwise and unlucrative to wean our dependence on the foreign oil. Alternative energy has been around for years. They suppress it because it is not as profitable.
BTW, I am not a democrat or a liberal, so save the name calling. I am totally independent of political affiliation. I just call a spade a friggin’ spade.

82

[quote]harris447 wrote:
TheBige wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
"David Winston, a GOP pollster, said the size of the retirement package of former Exxon Mobil chief executive Lee R. Raymond has added to public outrage over rising gasoline prices. Winston said the multimillion-dollar package made people doubt oil companies’ assertions that market forces and not their drive for profits stood behind the run-up in gasoline prices.

Raymond received $48.5 million in salary, bonus and incentive payments last year; he got a $98.5 million lump-sum retirement package in January, when he left the company; and he had accumulated by the end of 2005 $183 million in Exxon shares and unexercised stock options with a net worth of $69 million."

But Republicans are for the workingman…

Oil companies are fucking us. They will not stop until the government steps in.

Why don’t you look up what the CEO of FedEx is making?

FedEx is not a necessity; gas is.

FedEx’s prices have remained steady for years; gas’ hasn’t.

FedEx does a reliable job that doesn’t adversely affect out national security by making us do business with lunatics; gas…well, you get the picture.

[/quote]

Fed Ex is not a ‘necessity’? It therefore follows that transport is not a necessity. Tell that to your wife or kid when you go to your local Walgreens to get their prescription! How do you think the meds get to the pharmacy? I suppose the pharmaceutical company could get a mule to do a delivery.

Maybe your hot air could replace all the gasoline we use.

83

Fed Ex is specialty transport. When it “absolutely, positivly has to be there overnight.” So your premise does not lead to your conclusion. Specialty transport is not necessary, useful, but not necessary. Well into the 1970’s we lived just fine with out specialy transport. Most pharmacies don’t use Fed Ex for standard drug delivery.

84

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Fed Ex is not a ‘necessity’? It therefore follows that transport is not a necessity. Tell that to your wife or kid when you go to your local Walgreens to get their prescription! How do you think the meds get to the pharmacy? I suppose the pharmaceutical company could get a mule to do a delivery.

Maybe your hot air could replace all the gasoline we use.

Fed Ex is specialty transport. When it “absolutely, positivly has to be there overnight.” So your premise does not lead to your conclusion. Specialty transport is not necessary, useful, but not necessary. Well into the 1970’s we lived just fine with out specialy transport. Most pharmacies don’t use Fed Ex for standard drug delivery.

[/quote]

We also lived quite well without gasoline one hundred years ago.

The difference is that ExxonMobil is more of a monopoly than package delivery services.

Big oil is a vital industry and a closed marketplace and SOME government oversight is required to make sure they are not screwing us.

The trick is not to let the government fuck it up too because they are as capable of being incompetent, greedy and corrupt as the oil companies are.

85

[quote]Did you think of this while jetting to the Netherlands for a conference?

Amazing how all the limosine liberals want us ignorant oafs to sit on a stinking bus or subway car while they ride around in their new Escalades.

You libs are forgetting one crucial element in all your grandiose plans: what if I, and others like me, don’t want to be ‘planned’ or ‘restructered’? I suppose that’s when the ‘gloves come off’ of liberalism and we see what it really is.

A planned economy MUST eventually become fascist, simply because individuals don’t want to be ‘planned’. Ever hear of chaos theory? (Seems to me I’ve heard that around here lately.)
[/quote]

Ahahahahaha!

You are getting funnier all the time. You call liberals elitist but refer to buses and subways in derogatory terms as if YOU are too good for them yourself.

It’s a choice. It’s an option. Obviously you see yourself as far too elevated to make use of such an option. Who is calling whom an elitist around here?

How you segue into another tirade against liberal concepts is amazing and completely unwarranted, as usual.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You libs are forgetting one crucial element in all your grandiose plans: what if I, and others like me, don’t want to be ‘planned’ or ‘restructered’? I suppose that’s when the ‘gloves come off’ of liberalism and we see what it really is.
[/quote]

Are you actually arguing that a better public transit system is a bad thing? Actually living in the DC area, and experiencing how bad traffic congestion has become, it would be nice to have more public transportation available. This is something that requires infrastructure and planning, but it is incredibly beneficial. I don’t think anyone is talking about forcing anyone to give up driving; but by offering more and better public transportations, a greater number of people will find it in their interests to use it; those who do not use it will benefit as well, because the demand for fuel will go down, the highways will have less congestion, and there will simply be fewer people on the road.

Public transportation means more potential free time for everyone… me, because I can sit on the subway and read, or watch tv, or sleep… you, because your commute will be less hampered by rush hour traffic or large numbers of drivers not only increasing congestion but also the likelihood for accidents.

  1. What? Economic planning is one of the things that a well-ordered republic does. Unless you believe in true laissez-faire, but I doubt it. We’re talking about opening up new transportation options, for Christ’s sake.

  2. Who is talking about “planning” individuals? No one likes to be forced to give something up or to have a perceived right taken away. Montesquieu said (talking about religion) that invitations are stronger than penalties. I think that is what we’re talking about; creating incentives to use public transportation and reduce waste. What’s wrong with being economical?

  3. How does chaos theory apply, here?

87

If I could take a bus or a train to work with out adding signifigant travel time, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I didn’t drive in Italy and only missed it on one day, May 1, everything is closed including the subways.

88

[quote]pat36 wrote:
If I could take a bus or a train to work with out adding signifigant travel time, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I didn’t drive in Italy and only missed it on one day, May 1, everything is closed including the subways.[/quote]

Same here… I walked everywhere I needed to go, or I took a bus or train.

I am hating my commute now… it is anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half, but the closest I can get on public transportation would take me at least two hours each way.

89

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Did you think of this while jetting to the Netherlands for a conference?

Amazing how all the limosine liberals want us ignorant oafs to sit on a stinking bus or subway car while they ride around in their new Escalades.

You libs are forgetting one crucial element in all your grandiose plans: what if I, and others like me, don’t want to be ‘planned’ or ‘restructered’? I suppose that’s when the ‘gloves come off’ of liberalism and we see what it really is.

A planned economy MUST eventually become fascist, simply because individuals don’t want to be ‘planned’. Ever hear of chaos theory? (Seems to me I’ve heard that around here lately.)
[/quote]
I think this is quite a leap to go from expanding public transit to planning an economy.

There is plenty of market control and regulation on the part of all political factions in this country. So long as these factions and their methods are in conflict with one another there will be no planned economy on the grand scale that you seemingly propse. As when political powers shift one faction will extend their own control mechanisms and roll back those of the other.

90

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
"David Winston, a GOP pollster, said the size of the retirement package of former Exxon Mobil chief executive Lee R. Raymond has added to public outrage over rising gasoline prices. Winston said the multimillion-dollar package made people doubt oil companies’ assertions that market forces and not their drive for profits stood behind the run-up in gasoline prices.

Raymond received $48.5 million in salary, bonus and incentive payments last year; he got a $98.5 million lump-sum retirement package in January, when he left the company; and he had accumulated by the end of 2005 $183 million in Exxon shares and unexercised stock options with a net worth of $69 million."

But Republicans are for the workingman…

Oil companies are fucking us. They will not stop until the government steps in.
[/quote]

I would think you would support high energy prices to discourage the consumption you claim is causing global warming?

91

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…

Oil companies are fucking us. They will not stop until the government steps in.

I would think you would support high energy prices to discourage the consumption you claim is causing global warming?[/quote]

The Democrats have been pushing for this for decades. Now that it has happened they are complaining.

Bunch of hypocrites.

92

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Fed Ex is not a ‘necessity’? It therefore follows that transport is not a necessity. Tell that to your wife or kid when you go to your local Walgreens to get their prescription! How do you think the meds get to the pharmacy? I suppose the pharmaceutical company could get a mule to do a delivery.

Maybe your hot air could replace all the gasoline we use.

Fed Ex is specialty transport. When it “absolutely, positivly has to be there overnight.” So your premise does not lead to your conclusion. Specialty transport is not necessary, useful, but not necessary. Well into the 1970’s we lived just fine with out specialy transport. Most pharmacies don’t use Fed Ex for standard drug delivery.

[/quote]

The conclusion of “Fed Ex is not a necessity.” is that NO transportation based on gasoline is a necessity. If Fed Ex is optional, why not all other modes using gasoline?

Since these are optional, this means that they could in theory be done without. The results would be disasterous. Our society is predicated on this particular mode of transport. Sure, the drugs could be delivered by a guy riding a mule but is that desireable?

93

[quote]vroom wrote:
Did you think of this while jetting to the Netherlands for a conference?

Amazing how all the limosine liberals want us ignorant oafs to sit on a stinking bus or subway car while they ride around in their new Escalades.

You libs are forgetting one crucial element in all your grandiose plans: what if I, and others like me, don’t want to be ‘planned’ or ‘restructered’? I suppose that’s when the ‘gloves come off’ of liberalism and we see what it really is.

A planned economy MUST eventually become fascist, simply because individuals don’t want to be ‘planned’. Ever hear of chaos theory? (Seems to me I’ve heard that around here lately.)

Ahahahahaha!

You are getting funnier all the time. You call liberals elitist but refer to buses and subways in derogatory terms as if YOU are too good for them yourself.

It’s a choice. It’s an option. Obviously you see yourself as far too elevated to make use of such an option. Who is calling whom an elitist around here?

How you segue into another tirade against liberal concepts is amazing and completely unwarranted, as usual.[/quote]

Vroom,
They don’t want subways and busses as a CHOICE. And by stinking I meant that they physically stink from being packed full of people all the time.

Yes, you liberals are elitists. You want a planned society, because you think individuals cannot decide things for themselves, that you can do it better. To this I say: horseshit!

94

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You libs are forgetting one crucial element in all your grandiose plans: what if I, and others like me, don’t want to be ‘planned’ or ‘restructered’? I suppose that’s when the ‘gloves come off’ of liberalism and we see what it really is.

Are you actually arguing that a better public transit system is a bad thing? Actually living in the DC area, and experiencing how bad traffic congestion has become, it would be nice to have more public transportation available. This is something that requires infrastructure and planning, but it is incredibly beneficial. I don’t think anyone is talking about forcing anyone to give up driving; but by offering more and better public transportations, a greater number of people will find it in their interests to use it; those who do not use it will benefit as well, because the demand for fuel will go down, the highways will have less congestion, and there will simply be fewer people on the road.

Public transportation means more potential free time for everyone… me, because I can sit on the subway and read, or watch tv, or sleep… you, because your commute will be less hampered by rush hour traffic or large numbers of drivers not only increasing congestion but also the likelihood for accidents.

A planned economy MUST eventually become fascist, simply because individuals don’t want to be ‘planned’. Ever hear of chaos theory? (Seems to me I’ve heard that around here lately.)

  1. What? Economic planning is one of the things that a well-ordered republic does. Unless you believe in true laissez-faire, but I doubt it. We’re talking about opening up new transportation options, for Christ’s sake.

  2. Who is talking about “planning” individuals? No one likes to be forced to give something up or to have a perceived right taken away. Montesquieu said (talking about religion) that invitations are stronger than penalties. I think that is what we’re talking about; creating incentives to use public transportation and reduce waste. What’s wrong with being economical?

  3. How does chaos theory apply, here?[/quote]

I’ll answer #3. You and Hspder seem fascinated by chaos theory. If a system is planned (such as in the old Soviet Union), along comes some one change that has momentous impact – the gunpowder revolution, the information revolution, and so forth. An open society, being more adaptable and less centralized, can deal more easily with the change.

Now, suppose a public transport system, a very efficient one at that, is installed. Would this system be subject to , say, terrorism or breakdown at a greater scale than what we have now? Of course. One idiot with a suitcase bomb brings the whole thing to a screeching halt.

95

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Democrats have been pushing for this for decades. Now that it has happened they are complaining.

Bunch of hypocrites.[/quote]

No, we’ve been saying for years that Oil production has peaked and that crude prices are only going to climb - that cheap oil isn’t going to last because our consumption is unsustainable. Global warming isn’t THE reason to cut down on consumption, its ANOTHER reason to cut down on consumption. We’ve been saying that the shit is going to hit the fan for YEARS while Republicans hid thier heads in the sand. We were RIGHT.

Now that gas IS expensive (and since the g’vt has done fuck-all to research and impliment sustainable technologies because we’ve been thwarted by Republicans with stock in Exxon), it effects ALL of us, and since we have few other options, of COURSE we’re bitching about it. We’d HAVE more options if it wasn’t for idiot Republicans.

When the shit hits the fan, it splatters on everyone, even the dudes who said, “wait! don’t throw that!”

96

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Democrats have been pushing for this for decades. Now that it has happened they are complaining.

Bunch of hypocrites.[/quote]

I can’t defend “the Democrats” as a group (I’m not affiliated), but I think that for many of them the gripe is not the Gas Price as a whole, but rather the size of the chunk of it that is going to the Oil Companies.

I am not denying, however, that many politicians are being opportunistic about this. But do bear in mind it was Bush himself that pushed a bill last year to give Oil Companies tax breaks, so he cannot complain that people are extremely pissed off at him.

In more personal terms, what bothers ME is that, as several people (including you) mentioned, there is no real price competition in the Gas (and Oil) market (i.e., it is NOT a “free market”), and the current prices reflect a long-standing, stable Cartel – the kind of stuff laissez-faire economists claim never happens.

Cartels are the cancer of any Capitalist Economy, and we need to start addressing this one. Quickly. Not just because gas prices are high, but because cancers tend to be quite lethal…

97

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Are you actually arguing that a better public transit system is a bad thing? Actually living in the DC area, and experiencing how bad traffic congestion has become, it would be nice to have more public transportation available. This is something that requires infrastructure and planning, but it is incredibly beneficial. I don’t think anyone is talking about forcing anyone to give up driving; but by offering more and better public transportations, a greater number of people will find it in their interests to use it; those who do not use it will benefit as well, because the demand for fuel will go down, the highways will have less congestion, and there will simply be fewer people on the road.[/quote]

I love you man. Seriously. I think I have a huge Platonic man-crush on you.

98

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Vroom,
They don’t want subways and busses as a CHOICE. And by stinking I meant that they physically stink from being packed full of people all the time.

Yes, you liberals are elitists. You want a planned society, because you think individuals cannot decide things for themselves, that you can do it better. To this I say: horseshit!
[/quote]

I smell bullshit. No wonder you think everywhere you go stinks…

99

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now, suppose a public transport system, a very efficient one at that, is installed. Would this system be subject to , say, terrorism or breakdown at a greater scale than what we have now? Of course. One idiot with a suitcase bomb brings the whole thing to a screeching halt.[/quote]

Is this yet another one of your psychotic attacks, or are you just dumb?

A MAN-MADE system is only chaotic if you designed it to be chaotic. And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you’d realize that’s actually hard to do…

If you blow up the Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland, I bet you would also bring the whole “thing” to a halt too.

Any Engineer knows that there is this little thing called redundancy. For example, in The Netherlands, the railway system is highly redundant – there is a multiple rail “rings” connecting the three major cities that make up the Randstad – Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht – where most of the Dutch population is concentrated – each of them with 4 tracks. One would have to blow up 12 trains to bring the whole system down.

Things are quite similar in the surrounding countries:

http://www.alleuroperail.com/eurorailway-maps/benelux-map.htm

With the extreme weather they regularly experience, it is quite frequent for them to have tracks or power lines down – but the system is so redundant that it keeps on working.

Try blowing the (road) bridges and tunnels that connect to Manhattan and you’ll see what gridlock is.

100

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
They don’t want subways and busses as a CHOICE. And by stinking I meant that they physically stink from being packed full of people all the time.

Yes, you liberals are elitists. You want a planned society, because you think individuals cannot decide things for themselves, that you can do it better. To this I say: horseshit! [/quote]

Your psychosis continues. You don’t see a contradiction there? I mean, you first say that people stink (apparently people do not shower and use deodorant, buses and trains do not have windows and air conditioning was never invented) then you say WE are the elitists and WE are the ones saying people cannot make decisions (like using deodorant, or opening a window) for themselves?

Does your family have an history of schizophrenia? Or maybe you hit your head – HARD – a few years ago?

By the way, I got my first car only when I was 25 (even though I got a driver’s license when I turned 16, as everybody else). And for all the years I lived in Amsterdam, NL and in Padderborn, DE I only drove on weekends. When I lived in Lisbon, PT and Sao Paulo, BR, I did not own a car either.

My wife only got her driver’s license when she was 28… Not because she was not capable of learning, but because she hadn’t needed one until she moved here to the US with me.

The only reason I drive today is because of idiots like YOU that voted against using tax money to improve the public transit system and basically left me without a choice. IF I had a choice I’d choose to use public transit.