Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wouldn't surprise me if Dems were investigating why gas prices are high to try and figure out a way to make them even higher.
Wouldnt it be nice if we could go back to the gas prices of the 60's,i remember them in the $0.20gal range,of course i was only making $1 hr back then instead of the $35hr i'm making now..
Maybe prices in general have nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with a natural trend of things just getting more expensive over time.
You are so wrong on so many levels you are beyond redemption. For anyone else reading, however, there is this: oil for transportation is obsolete. The quicker we transition to an alternative form of energy for transportation the better. Notice I said "energy" and not "fuel". There is a small but vocal hydrogen fuel minority. There are the natural gas for transportation fuel advocates. Fuels require mining, refining and distribution. The model is perfected in the crude oil paradigm. It has made oil industry executives and affiliated persons BILLIONS in profits. What is there not to like in establishing a hydrogen or natural gas infrastructure that concentrates wealth at the top.
There is no excuse for being pro oil or pro hydrogen or pro natural gas for transportation except that one is invested in that industry. That is, I imagine sufficient personal motivation to defend these industries but it should not sway an objective reader without a financial interest.
H
Of course we must expand to alternative fuels- that is obvious. However the way to get to that point is not by crippling the US economy with higher and higher gas prices. "The quicker we transition to alternative fuel the better"- not necessarily- the transition needs to be well thought out and smooth, not quick. Keep in mind that the nation quickly embraced a community organizer for president and that did not turn out well either.
Make the transition to alternative fuels gradually. However, Obama is even opposed to the expansion of natural gas and coal, as well as oil, to fill the gap until that time comes.
Our state leads the US in percentage of power generated by wind. It is a clean, never ending source of fuel. However, it is naive beyond belief to think that the US could convert to wind, hydrogen, solar, and nuclear overnight.
Ask Geitner, Frank and friends who bore the responsibility of watchdog, how well government created oversight works. The concept of a government watchdog is akin to believing in Peter Pan and fairy dust.
Calling for a committee to study or investigate an issue is governmentspeak for doing nothing.
The Obama era philosophy requires a cold turkey withdrawl from oil. Along with that strategy goes the destruction of the economy. That is clear to everyone. Non viable solution are being mandated. Extravagant cost always results in extravagant profit....who benefits from all these premature embryonic ideas. Ideas that are so costly only an economic disater would make them look reasonable.
Is the object decreased reliance on oil or destruction the economy to usher in a new engine to replace that which has run America for its many generations?
EPA requires regional gas formulations, % of ethanol required to be mixed with gasoline. Problem is the ethanol comes from corn which is sunject to available crop land and favorable weather. A variation in either one will cause a catastrophy and another 'reason' to abandon gas engines. Gas has therefore become more speculative and costly it appears, by design.
A democratic investigation is a pre election stunt to create bumper stickers and political ads.
Of course we must expand to alternative fuels- that is obvious. However the way to get to that point is not by crippling the US economy with higher and higher gas prices. "The quicker we transition to alternative fuel the better"- not necessarily- the transition needs to be well thought out and smooth, not quick. Keep in mind that the nation quickly embraced a community organizer for president and that did not turn out well either.
Make the transition to alternative fuels gradually. However, Obama is even opposed to the expansion of natural gas and coal, as well as oil, to fill the gap until that time comes.
Our state leads the US in percentage of power generated by wind. It is a clean, never ending source of fuel. However, it is naive beyond belief to think that the US could convert to wind, hydrogen, solar, and nuclear overnight.
No. It isn't obvious. We must not expand to alternate fuels there is only one viable alternative for transportation: electricity. The best strategy for creating abundant electrical potential is diversification into a variety of alternative fuels and technologies.
That will never happen, however, while oil is affordable. Given a choice, we always choose to keep masturbating until we see clear evidence of vision loss, rather than believe our parents are correct and cease the practice immediately upon advisement. No one expects an overnight conversion to any alternative energy but... it should have happened by now. The first oil shocks in the '70's should have started the migration. How did the heads up work for us?
You need to get over your "community organizer" bias. Leadership can come from a variety of backgrounds and experience. Including Hollywood Acting, Extended Binge Drinking, Real Estate Development and other sundry occupations having no direct correlation with the governance of nation states. Just saying.
No. It isn't obvious. We must not expand to alternate fuels there is only one viable alternative for transportation: electricity.
Is this the very same "electricity" that Obama said under his plan, the prices would skyrocket? Is this also the very same electricity thats generated by burning other natural resources? How exactly is this fixing anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
The best strategy for creating abundant electrical potential is diversification into a variety of alternative fuels and technologies.
I dont even know how someone could post that, and do it without expecting others to laugh.. Let me get this straight, you think the best strategy, is to just keep throwing money into altnerative fuels, and other technologies, thereby spreading out the costs into other avenues proven not to be efficient? There is a reason why we use oil at the moment, its because it works. When a viable alternative works, one that makes economic sense, we'll switch. The answer isnt to throw 500 things out to society to find out what works, its to sit in a labratory and find out whats most efficient, THEN make the transition. Thats like suggesting Thomas Edison would have invented the lighbulb earlier had he simply mass produced the thousands of failures that he had.. Ridiculous. Mass producing failures dont equate to success..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
That will never happen, however, while oil is affordable.
Oil is affordable because its in abundant supply, and thankfully, yes, the above will never happen as long as oil is affordable. Mass producing failure is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Given a choice, we always choose to keep masturbating until we see clear evidence of vision loss, rather than believe our parents are correct and cease the practice immediately upon advisement.
We will continue to do the status quo, as long as the status quo makes sense. The fact that you think it makes sense to mass produce failures doesnt mean it makes sense..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
No one expects an overnight conversion to any alternative energy but... it should have happened by now.
It is happening now, AS IT MAKES SENSE. The problem is, it just doesnt make sense on so many avenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
The first oil shocks in the '70's should have started the migration. How did the heads up work for us?
Why on gods earth do you not expect the same things to happen with altnernative energy sources? Look at ethanol for example.. How did the heads up on that work out? How does it make sense to generate massive amounts of electricity, thereby depleating other natural resources, to overburden an electrical system not capable of supporting the demands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
You need to get over your "community organizer" bias. Leadership can come from a variety of backgrounds and experience. Including Hollywood Acting, Extended Binge Drinking, Real Estate Development and other sundry occupations having no direct correlation with the governance of nation states. Just saying.
H
Yes leadership can come from a variety of background experiences, but even Obama couldnt tell you what he was doing as a "community organizer"
“When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly,” Obama wrote in his memoir, Dreams from My Father.
I'm sorry, if you cant tell me what leadership you took part in, then you didnt take part in any!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
