I don’t think you can seriously attempt to defend our governmentally produced and subsidized roads and highways as part of some sort of free market in transportation…
Public transit vs. highways is just one governmental plan vs. another.
[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?
[/quote]
This does not deflaw the logic. Your premises do not make your conclusion. Fed Ex not being a need, in terms of functioning in the modern world has nothing to do with doing away with all forms of mechanized transportation. It’s like trying to play baseball with a football, it don’t work. The Fed Ex CEO is loaded because people decided to use his service. Not all specialized transports are successful.We can choose to ship or not. We could just send ‘it’ through the mail.
The outrage is based simply on this, we have to have gasoline to work and to live. The oil tycoons, when disasters hit, wars break out or threaten, make record profits, while the rest of the normal population (including Fed Ex for that matter) suffer. We have to driveless, conserve more. Mean while these cock suckers are making record profits, off of our suffering. That’s why people are pissed. That’s why people want to hang these fuckers by thier toenails.
This may not even be accurate, but you have to wonder, why when a hurricaine Katrina hits, people die, a city is wiped out and these fuckers thrive like never before, while everybody else gives? This red hot light they are under is exposing some serious greed issues. The oil folks say us pedestrian folks don’t understand the way oil works, well they don’t understand how public scrutiny works, but they will.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think you can seriously attempt to defend our governmentally produced and subsidized roads and highways as part of some sort of free market in transportation…
Public transit vs. highways is just one governmental plan vs. another.[/quote]
Well, on the surface, yes. Underneath? Well it’s a whole different story. Investing in a nationwide system of roads and petrolium infrastructure essentially GAURANTEES mega profits in the auto industry and oil industry for a potentially indefinite ammount of time - er, at least until resources run out. People will always need new cars, and they will always need to power those cars with something.
When suburbs started popping up along with more roads and gas stations, the politicians who planned for this and invested tax dollars in this infrastructure knew EXACTLY what they were doing. There was a calculated, corporate interest involved.
Trying to compare an adequte mass transportation plan to this is simply rediculous. Sure, there will be some special interest groups involved and pro-mass transit, like the labor unions with workers to build them, the steel workers who produce the materials, and the electric companies that will supply the power to run them. HOWEVER, these interests are fragmented, and don’t (and WONT) have NEARLY the clout and power of the big oil cartels.
Improved mass transit nationwide has only positive benefits.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think you can seriously attempt to defend our governmentally produced and subsidized roads and highways as part of some sort of free market in transportation…
Public transit vs. highways is just one governmental plan vs. another.[/quote]
That is a VERY good point. Thank you for bringing that up.
Interesting article on our oil outlook in Reason:
[quote]vroom wrote:
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!
I smell bullshit. No wonder you think everywhere you go stinks…[/quote]
No, if you’d change your clothes more than once per month,…
Neph,
After reading Hspder 2nd declaration of love for you, you might want to watch your back. Where I teach, he’d be on ‘the suspicion list’.
HH
[quote]hspder wrote:
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!
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.
[/quote]
Are you terrified that you may be psychotic? You keep bringing this up.
Look, if you want to turn the United States into the Netherlands or Brazil, if you think they are so wonderful and we’re all idiots because we wouldn’t provide you with human cattle cars, then go the fuck back to one of those places. You want to impose what you think is good on people who mostly think you’re full of shit. “Wah, wah, the USA doesn’t believe what I do!” Tough fucking shit!
Americans are independent people. They don’t want to be like the goddamned cowardly Europeans who run and hide if somebody farts in their direction. And we’re tired of liberating these so-called superior countries from evil assholes because they run and hide at the first sound of an angry voice.
We drive cars. We don’t like to ride in cattle cars. Live with it or hit the fucking road.
T S fucking B.
Headhunter is the most annoying troll on this board.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
T S fucking B.
Headhunter is the most annoying troll on this board.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We drive cars. We don’t like to ride in cattle cars. Live with it or hit the fucking road.
[/quote]
Just curious: do you offroad to work? I don’t think cars provide the kind of freedom you think they do; after all, you need an ID to drive. You can be pulled over at any time. Generally, You have to follow the roads, so it isn’t like there’s a lot of creativity involved. If you wanted to flee, you’d probably be better off fleeing by mass transit than by car. And again, no one has suggested eliminating cars.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We drive cars. We don’t like to ride in cattle cars. Live with it or hit the fucking road.
[/quote]
Elitist troll! Go figure…
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Democrats have been pushing for this for decades. Now that it has happened they are complaining.
Bunch of hypocrites.
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!”[/quote]
Read Al Gore’s book. Look at John Kerry’s additional $ 0.50 a gallon tax proposal.
They wanted to raise the price of gas to reduce consumption to protect the environment.
These guys are the last 2 Democratic presidential candidates. There were many many more that also wanted higher gas prices to shift the economics so
alternative energy would be more favorable.
Now we have higher gas prices and the Democrats believe they can ride this issue into control of Congress.
I fail to see how this is not blatant hypocrisy on their part.
Obviously Ted Kennedy is just in the pocket of big oil… because no one could have any other reasons to object to anything on the “green” agenda, right?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Obviously Ted Kennedy is just in the pocket of big oil… because no one could have any other reasons to object to anything on the “green” agenda, right?
Kennedy faces fight on Cape Wind - The Boston Globe [/quote]
Teddy can afford energy no matter how expensive it gets. Fuck everybody else.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Democrats have been pushing for this for decades. Now that it has happened they are complaining.
Bunch of hypocrites.
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!”
Read Al Gore’s book. Look at John Kerry’s additional $ 0.50 a gallon tax proposal.
They wanted to raise the price of gas to reduce consumption to protect the environment.
These guys are the last 2 Democratic presidential candidates. There were many many more that also wanted higher gas prices to shift the economics so
alternative energy would be more favorable.
Now we have higher gas prices and the Democrats believe they can ride this issue into control of Congress.
I fail to see how this is not blatant hypocrisy on their part.[/quote]
Make no mistake, the only thing green politicians care about is money, period.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Democrats have been pushing for this for decades. Now that it has happened they are complaining.
Bunch of hypocrites.
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!”
Read Al Gore’s book. Look at John Kerry’s additional $ 0.50 a gallon tax proposal.
They wanted to raise the price of gas to reduce consumption to protect the environment.
These guys are the last 2 Democratic presidential candidates. There were many many more that also wanted higher gas prices to shift the economics so
alternative energy would be more favorable.
Now we have higher gas prices and the Democrats believe they can ride this issue into control of Congress.
I fail to see how this is not blatant hypocrisy on their part.[/quote]
It absolutely is. Pelosi’s statement the other day was a joke, and emblematic of why the Democrats are still virtually irrelevant despite what a disaster this administration has been.
Having said that, I’m not sure a raised gas tax would necessarily be a bad thing. We need the revenue, and if you’re kind of uncomfortable with some massive government alternative energy project, slowly pushing the market in that direction through higher fuel prices might be the lesser of two evils.
20 years from now when i am rolling around in my nuclear powered assault mech i will be laughing at you all!
The increased gas tax was simply a part of a bigger plan. I don’t think that anyone can argue against the fact that petrolium has many environmentally hazardous problems - when it burns, when it’s extracted, when it’s refined, etc. The other part of the plan was to invest in renewable energy sources so that when what’s happening now happened, there would ALREADY be some alternatives on the market whose prices would remain stable, or else drop periodically due to advances in technology.
Giving oil companies a huge friggin’ tax break and then talking about investigating price gouging and “looking into” alternative energy sources, all the while spending WAY more money than we have IS hypocrisy, and I think a much larger incidence of hypocrisy than the Democratic leadership is showing at the moment.
The Democrats are of course going to jump at the opportunity to use an issue to help them gain more power in this country - politics over the last 6 years have been REDICULOUS. The reason the Dem’s are talking a big talk about this issue is because there is OBVIOUSLY price gouging going on here, and because if we had taken proper measures earlier, this wouldn’t be such a big deal. At least we’re not going on the news, changing “Nyah-nyah, we told you so”.
The “green” agenda as you call it, is an inteligent one in the long run, and I think nearly anyone can agree with the basic tennets of protecting the resources we have so that future generations can enjoy them. Pollution doesn’t really benefit anyone in the long run, nor does leveling our forests. Since there are many environmentally friendly solutions to the energy and material needs of our country, I think we should impliment them, and I think we should do our best to implement them in a way that doesn’t cripple our economy (for example, if we legalized Hemp, we’d have an EXCELLENT product to export, and an incredible source of paper, high quality oil, etc. all from a plant that is nitrogen-sparing and can be grown again and again on the same plot of land). Kennedy obviously opposes the windmill bill because he doesn’t want to have to see them outside his back door. Or, who knows, maybe he’s a bird-watcher. Fact is, most people don’t like the way wind farms look, but it’s a GREAT source of energy.
It is simply foolish and shortsighted to believe that petrolium is always going to be there in great enough quantities to remain inexpensive enough to fuel the entire world. Us “wacko environmentalists” have been saying this for quite some time, and only now that gas is $3 a gallon (btw, it’ll be $5 with 2 years), is anyone noticing. …so, Zap, exactly WHO are the hypocrites here?
[quote]knewsom wrote:
…Kennedy obviously opposes the windmill bill because he doesn’t want to have to see them outside his back door. Or, who knows, maybe he’s a bird-watcher. Fact is, most people don’t like the way wind farms look, but it’s a GREAT source of energy.
[/quote]
My post was obviously facetious. Teddy K. has a case of NIMBY – but he’s such a flaming hypocrite on this stuff because of his stance on other green issues that it had to be posted.
I’m generally for exploring other energy sources – most particularly nuclear, but others as well. Forcing conversion before they are efficient, however, is another matter entirely.