O/T: Opinion AKA: LipStick On A Pig

Page 2 of 4  


He's 9% different. He is 91% the same. At least that's how he's voted in the past 7-1/2 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd be happy to have the John McCain who ran in 2000.
I tend to think that his positions since have been:
1) Loyalty to the President who won the election and to the direction his party has taken.
2) Deference to the decisions made by the commander- in-chief during wartime.
3) Positioning himself to gain the support of the voters who defeated him in favor of Bush in 2000. (e.g. If you can't beat them, join them.)
So I don't know if he took the positions he did in 2000 to gain support of that part of the Republican Party that could be swayed away from Bush, or if those positions reflected his true principles and he is only pandering now or, and this I consider to be most likely he, like most politicians, has always pandered and has no genuine loyalty to any, or at most only a preciously small set, of principles.
It is all too easy to believe that a person who tells me what I want to hear, actually believes it himself.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Which ideas are these? What exactly didn't work?

Why? What makes you think McCain isn't his own man?......If any main stream politician beats to his own drummer, surely McCain does. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Pick one. energy, the economy, fiscal policy, arrogant foreign policy, the list goes on.

You're a big boy, you can do your own home work.

The man has sold his soul to get this opportunity.
The McCain of 2000 is not the McCain of 2008, he has transformed himself into McBush of 2000-2008, which is a damn shame/
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

OK, Alex, I'll take energy for 200 please.
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and Cheney were so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have started shortly after 2001.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for energy and it's impact on the world economy.
Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil person's mentality to address the problem.
Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a leader.
Drill baby drill was their solution.
There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it is simply not going to happen.
We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in extracting, to solve the problem.
BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation. Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline, but they did on everything else.
That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500 lb drum of epoxy lately?)
There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4% of the population), is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to convert CO2 back to O2.
IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st half of the 21st century.
We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we will get our clocks cleaned.
If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of living.
I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.
IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for President.
All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party line.
Times are changing, they need a serious update.
He may very well have some new ideas, but he hasn't presented them.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point. This one is one of the most patently absurd ones that should make people laugh in derision. The idea that solving a shortage is supply can't be solved by increasing supply -- what a concept.

Not interested in extracting? ... or not yet profitable?

... and a greater supply of crude is not going to help this, how?

Back to the politics of austerity. A more correct statement is the fact that we can't conserve our way out of this problem either. At least not while maintaining a viable, vibrant economy.

Dem talking points #2 and #3. While using that amount of energy, we also have used it to produce a significant amount of the world's food (until the politicians meddled in that arena) and a significant amount of the world's economy. It's not because we are using those things that other parts of the world are in poverty. Global warming? Since 1998, average temperatures have fallen, the idea of man-made global warming is laughable yet significant time and energy have had to be devoted to debunking this myth.

Different problem

Gore talking point

If renewable energy is viable, it will be cost competitive without artificial means --that includes both subsidies and the ridiculous idea of the carbon tax scheme.

Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December 2000, nothing he could have done would have changed that.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sigh.... It's not *simply* drilling more holes. If it were that simple, it would have been done years ago.
They have to develop *new techniques* to extract the oil.
One involves pumping compressed chemicals into shale to extract the oil. There is a strong push to do this. And to make it easier, the government has created loopholes in the EPA laws to allow this. The trouble is, the process is secret, and the oil companies won't say what the chemicals are that they use.
And in one case, the shale is right near the aquafer in NYC. Essentially there are concerns that the unnamed chemicals will contaminate the drinking water of New York City.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

<snip>
Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.
First two laws of debate:
1)When you have the facts on your side, use them.
2)When you don't, throw crap on the wall and see if you can get something to stick.
Pretty obvious which of the above you have chosen.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

This coming from the person who originated this particular discussion using such terms as "McBush", derision of our own people "our wasteful consumption", McCain has sold his sole [sic].

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mark, there are so many holes in your boat, it no longer floats.
Your side had the opportunity of a lifetime to do some good around this world of ours. Instead, greed drove your crew to drop the ball. You lose.
Every time I see one of your posts, it reminds me of that famous Python Knight: "come back here you coward!!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<snip>
As (gas) prices

<snip>
The federal gasoline tax and most if not all state gas taxes are per gallon, not percentage. Gas tax revenue has declined since prices have risen dramatically because folks are using less gasoline and diesel.
We are foolish to consider using whatever reserves of US oil we have now. Far better to wait until we've used up all the rest of the world's oil, and then we will have some left. Why it's the strategic reserve in grand style! (Not really my point of view, but makes more sense than most of the opinions being floated out there.)
Of course the oil companies want more offshore leases now, even though they aren't drilling the ones they have now and don't have the crews and equipment to drill them all anyway. They can get the leases for a song now, compared to what they will cost them in 10 or 20 years when they will start to get serious about using them.
Paul F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul Franklin wrote:

What about the local and state taxing bodies? The sales taxes in various flavors that are levied are certainly not per gallon, but a percentage. The government has gotten far more out of this blip in gas prices than have the eeeeeevil oil companies. Oh, and if those aforementioned oil companies are not profitable, just who do you propose will:
a) Get new oil for consumption (The TSA, perhaps?) b) Repair the consequent damage done to institutional investments like 401Ks and union retirements funds -funds that depend in part to a solvent and profitable oil industry.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:47:01 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

State taxes are also levied per gallon, and sales taxes are not levied on gasoline or other fuels. Government has not gotten any increased revenue out of the rise in fuel prices. On the contrary, their cost for fuel for government vehicles, and especially for the military fighting in Iraq and elsewhere has gone up just nearly as much (some cases more) than that of ordinary US citizens.
Most people, myself included, do not begrudge the oil companies a healthy profit. It is the American way and the companies and their investors deserve it provided the companies are well run. If they were to take the lead and plow a significant portion of their increased revenue back into their business by supporting R&D for alternative fuels, they would be demonstrating good business savvy. They would be doing the right thing to grow their business long term and thus ensure their stockholders good long term value, And they would gain the respect and support of US citizens who understand they are acting to advance both corporate and US interests.
But they haven't done this to any real degree. Now, no one expects the local pizza shop to worry about what's right for the US when they make their business plans and decide what to do with their profits. But Oil is a natural resource and of fundamental national importance. The failure (so far) of the oil business to acknowledge this and take action is why there is appropriate outrage from many citizens at their failure to demonstrate leadership.
Certainly there is no really short term replacement for Oil as a transportation fuel. But failing to actively and aggressively seek alternatives for the future is (IMO) a worse failing than drilling everywhere we can right now in an attempt to increase supply for a short while to temper prices.
Paul F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul Franklin wrote:

New York State imposes a 4% sales tax on gasoline with my county adding another 4.75% sales tax to the cost of each gallon. Most states apply sales tax to fuels.
See:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/245.html
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks for the correction. You're correct that there are a few states that apply sales tax to fuels. But your link just lists general state sales tax rates (and gas, alcohol, and cigarette tax rates).
The link below lists states that have state and/or local taxes that are levied on gasoline or diesel. It's from 2002, but at that time there were only 5 states with state sales taxes on fuel, and 6 states that have some local sales taxes on fuels (Georgia has both). With the exception of those, federal, state and local governments fuel taxes are per gallon. So the federal government and 45 state governments have not seen any tax revenue increase due to the rise in gasoline/diesel prices.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/gastax.pdf
Paul F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul Franklin wrote: <SNIP>

That's nice as far as it goes - I even sort of agree with you - but there is a huge pragmatic elephant in the room. The oil companies have been so vilified by the left, the enviros, the press, the populists, and so on that they are constantly under PR and even regulatory assault. For example, Katrina took out key refining resources. The oil companies knew this was problem long ago, but had apparently given up building additional capacity because pretty much no one wanted a refinery built in their back yard. We cannot have it both ways. Either the oil companies must be profitable without constantly having to defend themselves from every drooling cause in the country, or they will take what they have, sit on it and make no significant new capital investments.
As to their "responsibility" to pursue alternative fuels - I rather think that the market will solve this problem if allowed to. There isn't an "alternative" out there today that is currently economically rational. In order to see investment in things like hydrogen, there is going to have to be a reason for someone to do it - the belief that it will show a return on investment within some reasonable time.
But our genius politicians and populist sheeple leaders use government to distort the price of oil to try and keep prices "fair". I their every wheezing we hear how the big eeeeeeevil oil companies are making too much money so the government needs to "step in" by dropping fuel taxes, increasing regulation, and so forth. When the price of something is artificially depressed, there is less and less motivation for someone to find its alternative.
"Laissez Faire", I say - let the *market* set the price. The reason, of course, the Usual Suspects don't want to let this happen is because:
1) It takes the slimy politicians out of the equation thereby further exposing how unimportant they are.
2) A good many of the screech owls in the environmentalist left who whine about the lack of oil in the future, don't really believe it. They are terrified that - under real market conditions - there would be increased economic incentives to drill, refine, and explore more efficiently, thereby keeping crude and gasoline as energy staples at reasonable prices. They want to use government force to do what is economically irrational at the moment - make a huge forward investment in alternative technologies - many of which have no real future.
P.S. I want to be the first in line to picket the offices of Earth First, Green Peace, and the Sierra Club when these idiots finally figure out that their push to hybrid created an enormous environmental cleanup problem: The clean disposal of billions of lead-acid batteries that can no longer be recycled. I'd like to wish the whole bunch of those people the insanity that comes with ingestion of too much lead, but ... how would we be able to tell the difference from their mentality today?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You seem to suggest in increasing the supply of refined products will reduce the cost when in fact the supply aready meets or exceeds the demand and MOST of the cost in the refined products is in the raw material itself.
Excess refining capacity is excess cost that does not contribute to the generation of additional revenue unless the company captures more of the market. A company with more refineries could not do that because the petroleum contracts in place do not allow them to buy more petroleum. But even if one oil company did expand its production and capture more the market, then some other would lose part of its share and decrease its product.
Production will NEVER significantly exceed demand for any significant period of time.

Hybrids do no use lead-acid batteries.
Don't let that stop you from picketing.
--
FF
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Really? That surprises me. Cars like the Prius use what? Alkaline cells? Lithium-Ion? (Lithium, BTW, not being particularly more earth friendly than Lead, and - IIRC - cannot be recyled/reused often/ever as compared to L-A.) If you have references on this, I'd like to read them ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having just checked that, some do use lead--those are recyclable.
Lead-acid batteries are being phased out in favor of the nickel (nicad?) and lithium-ion batteries.
I'm not familiar with the lithium-ion technology though I am pretty sure that lithium is much less toxic than lead and nickel and not prone to biomultiplication.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.