Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of
Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding
behind her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to
solve anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't
heard anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack
politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies?
(Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more
buggy whips to make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:

The people who read and participate in this NG, and other woodworking web
based forums, are literate (they can read and write, compose paragraphs,
etc.) can use technology like computers, and know how to think through a
sequence of steps in using tools (hand and power) to accomplish a goal.
In short, they have disciplined their minds to invest their time into
projects that are *delayed* gratification by the nature of taking more
than an hour to complete; and then delay it even longer when they start
the finishing process.

However, mews-readers on TV and Cable, on the other hand, don't want to
devote more than 15 seconds to economic theory. How can a person, any
person, explain economic theory on blue collar job expansions by private
enterprises in 15 seconds. Therefore, it comes down to what will fill
that 15 seconds TV has allocated to a discussion of political economics:
Spending money to fund Community Colleges across the country to expand
teaching small business start-up, or fill that time with "Lipstick?"

You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15 second
bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail banking
failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Again, I could be wrong here. It sometimes is not the politician's but
the News-readers time limit on a subject; they don't want the audience to
switch channels, do they?

Again, IMHO, and I may be wrong.

On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine..

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? *We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" *Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?


The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are
going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large
power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're
generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/
electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal
combustion engine.

Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW
portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the
power company, because you don't run your house on those portable
generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive
to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they
break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.

So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be
overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small
generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution,
whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might
only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.

-Nathan

Phil Again wrote:

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Couple of comments. First, I think demand for natural gas is increasing
faster than demand for oil. It may be cheaper now (haven't checked
prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant
future.

Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.

Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity
regardless of load. Because of this, a certain amount of baseload
generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops.
This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect
on overall demand.

Chris

On Sep 11, 11:23*am, Chris Friesen wrote:
Phil Again wrote:
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" *Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Couple of comments. *First, I think demand for natural gas is increasing
faster than demand for oil. *It may be cheaper now (haven't checked
prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant
future.

Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. *Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. *Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.

I think the big advantage of all electric cars, lies in the fact that
power generating stations are able to run on coal, reactors, wind and
hydro.
Those are all fuels which regular engines cannot use. The BTU's per
dollar from coal or nuclear sources are several magnitudes cheaper
than those fuels which we buy from foreign countries, then refine and
distribute through 'Big Oil'.

Those centralized power sources can be run relatively clean compared
to the alternatives. Nuclear is well proven source of electrical power
which can get us to be energy self sufficient.

But.... there is nothing for nothing. Capital investment in a nuke is
high, so is maintenance. The least of the problems lie in the area of
waste management. Throwing a bezillion tons of ash and oxides from
fossil fired stations into the atmosphere ain't no picnic either.

The biggest problem with nuclear power, is the ignorance of the
general public.

One good sized nuke, and a coast-to-coast electrified railroad system
will get a LOT of those stinking trucks off the roads, including their
rubber tires (Whic use a lot of carbon based products) and smelly
service stations G

Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity
regardless of load. *Because of this, a certain amount of baseload
generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops.
This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect
on overall demand.

Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW. Which is why there are smaller, more
nimble, and always less efficient 'peaking' stations which can cycle
much quicker and can be taken off line, and restarted with greater
ease that the big fellas. Those are usually coal or oil fired. The
real big guys create problems to the rest of the network by their
requirement for spinning reserve. IOW, the rest of the system has to
be able to instantly replace the energy lost by the biggest single
generator in the system. If there is an 850 MW generator dumping power
into a 10000 MW network, you'd need ...say.. 10 stations running 85 MW
below capacity.

That, incidentally, wouldn't be a bad policy to implement on oil
tankers. Force them to always sail with an empty hold, so if another
hold is punctured, you immediately start pumping the oil from the
damaged one into the empty one. That way, another seagull can survive
so it can get swatted out of the sky by the blade of a windmill
generator.

WILL you look at the time.....

Robatoy wrote:

Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW.

Yep. I didn't say the power was wasted, just the generating capacity.
(And as you say, some inefficiency is introduced.)

Since the capacity exists already, a certain amount of additional
off-peak power usage could be accommodated without any need to increase
generating capacity.

Chris

On Sep 11, 12:58*pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW.

Yep. *I didn't say the power was wasted, just the generating capacity.
(And as you say, some inefficiency is introduced.)

Since the capacity exists already, a certain amount of additional
off-peak power usage could be accommodated without any need to increase
generating capacity.

Load smoothing is always a good idea. A 500 MW generator idling a 200
MW while it waits for everybody to turn on their toasters in the
morning, could be sitting a 400 MW and then all the toasters would
come on needing that 300 MW that now no longer exists. The only way to
do that, would be to have the ability to start knocking off car
chargers (for instance), remotely, as the demand for toast increases.
In today's wired society, I can't see that being such a tall order.
Have the power company control when you can charge or not...OR.. make
people pay big for those KW/h during peak hours. (An option you can
sell G)

Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.


Crossed wires here, I was addressing the steam turbine electrical
generation plants that use oil burners to create the steam.

Phil

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:QM2yk.1008$Wd.61@trnddc01...
Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't, but
also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies?
(Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy
whips to make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget about
them? We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would be
refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a continuation
of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.

todd

"todd" wrote:


I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked
already, but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your
questions. But I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said
nothing about the above.

As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.

As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the
Replublicans have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.

They need a serious update.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:kLiyk.1054$Wd.222@trnddc01...

"todd" wrote:


I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already,
but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But
I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the
above.

As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.

As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the Replublicans
have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.

They need a serious update.

Lew

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally asserted
or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it? I know...it's
*sooo* hard keeping all of the liberal propaganda straight. Turn to page
184 of the playbook for your next response.

todd

"todd" wrote:

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"todd" wrote:

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew



He won't wait 8 years to cross in Pakistan in pursuit of the bad guys.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote:

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is different
than Bush.

Lew
Somehow I doubt that.

As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies would
be a good thing? You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT
have the whole story. We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was taken.
It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or how
terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to it we have
nothing better to offer. All we can do is vote what sounds good to us,
which is why I'm voting for Barr this time. But I won't let my
dissapointment with the current administration lead me to insult the
President or disrespect a serving Senator (not that I'm implying you've
done those things either) because even at their worst I could never do
better. If I have in the past insulted them, it was at my most immodest of
times.

"Eigenvector" wrote:

Somehow I doubt that.

Interesting observation, what makes you say that?

As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies
would be a good thing?

The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.

You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT have the
whole story. We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was
taken.

Nobody ever accused the current adminstration of playing straight with
the American people.

It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or
how terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to
it we have nothing better to offer.

I certainly hope so.

Think that is why we are having an election.

It won't take much too exceed what is in place.

All we can do is vote what sounds good to us, which is why I'm voting
for Barr this time.

If that is what your research indicates you should do, then by all
means do it.

But I won't let my dissapointment with the current administration
lead me to insult the President or disrespect a serving Senator
(not that I'm implying you've done those things either) because even
at their worst I could never do better. If I have in the past
insulted them, it was at my most immodest of times.

What does disrespect have to do with incompetence?

Lew

On Sep 11, 11:48*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"todd" wrote:
So which is it? *Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

He's 9% different. He is 91% the same. At least that's how he's voted
in the past 7-1/2 years.

On Sep 12, 12:50*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Eigenvector" wrote:
Somehow I doubt that.

Interesting observation, what makes you say that?

As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies
would be a good thing?

The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.

You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT have the
whole story. *We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was
taken.

Nobody ever accused the current adminstration of playing straight with
the American people.

It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or
how terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to
it we have nothing better to offer.

I certainly hope so.

Think that is why we are having an election.

It won't take much too exceed what is in place.

All we can do is vote what sounds good to us, which is why I'm voting
for Barr this time.

If that is what your research indicates you should do, then by all
means do it.

But I won't let my dissapointment with the current administration
lead me to insult the President or disrespect a serving Senator
(not that I'm implying you've done those things either) because even
at their worst I could never do better. *If I have in the past
insulted them, it was at my most immodest of times.

What does disrespect have to do with incompetence?

Lew

I guess some people feel that recognizing an incompetent leader is
disrespectful.

I'm not at all sure Bush-Cheney is incompetent. They've done very well
for family and friends, and very poorly for the country because of
that. IMO, Bush should be impeached and tried as a traitor. Cheney,
too.

On Sep 11, 10:10*am, N Hurst wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:





On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? *We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" *Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are
going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large
power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're
generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/
electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal
combustion engine.

Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW
portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the
power company, because you don't run your house on those portable
generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive
to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they
break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.

So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be
overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small
generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution,
whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might
only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.

-Nathan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This seems to make sense and I'd guess that you are correct. But it's
one of those things that could be counterintuitive. I'd like to see
some data or at least a technical analysis. In that analysis, it would
be very interesting to know the NET effect in environmental impact. I
agree the the net is probably positive regarding electric cars, but I
have no idea whether it's a large or small improvement once you factor
in the "environmental cost" of generating the electricity.

Let's face it, popular culture is becoming very obsessed with being
"green" and the consumer industry has jumped on the bandwagon to milk
our sentiment for every possible $$. The upside is that it has raised
awareness. That's good, but it's not good if the economic load to "go
green" is MUCH larger than the REAL benefit to the environment. I'm
not saying that it's not worth it, I'm saying that I don't have enough
FACTUAL data to form a conclusion.

The bottom line is, these this are more complicated that they appear.

Certain factions seem to feel that no cost is too high. I would ask
them this: "Would you spend $1,000,000 to save an entire species of
animal? Most of us would answer "yes".

Okay then, what about one individual animal. Fewer would say "yes".

What about a tree, or a small plant. Is $1,000,000 worth it?

Food for thought...

Lew Hodgett wrote:
So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

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

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

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

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Which ideas are these?

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

What exactly didn't work?

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

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

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news5xyk.7$3e1.3@trnddc02...

"Eigenvector" wrote:

Somehow I doubt that.

Interesting observation, what makes you say that?

As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies
would be a good thing?

The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.

SNIP
Lew

Since this appears to be the cornerstone of your argument. What
specifically have YOU experienced in the last 8 years that has led you to
believe Bush to be incompetent? I certainly wouldn't call someone
incompetent unless I had first hand experience to back it up. Just because
all my friends call someone a loser doesn't mean I'm going to.

Personally I've done far better under Bush than I have under Clinton,
although I personally have no issues with Clinton years of service either.

"Eigenvector" wrote in
:

What
specifically have YOU experienced in the last 8 years that has led you
to believe Bush to be incompetent? I certainly wouldn't call someone
incompetent unless I had first hand experience to back it up. Just
because all my friends call someone a loser doesn't mean I'm going to.

Personally I've done far better under Bush than I have under Clinton,
although I personally have no issues with Clinton years of service
either.

What I experienced personally is that my brother in law refused to come
to the US to help celebrate our 40th anniversary, because of Bush's
policies.
What I experienced is disgust that a President could lie to the country
(either totally wilfully or through incompetence to get the facts) and
involve us in a war that was not necesary. I have always had total
disgust for the piece of **** who ruled Iraq, but there was no evidence
of WoMD or of collaboration with Al Quaeda. Most importantly, that war
was started with a lack of sufficient assets and a lack of access. It
was started without an adequate plan for governing of the occupied
territory, without a plan to police the people or to bring the different
factions and tribes together. Remember, what we call Iraq is just some
lines on a map drawb after WWI. Lastly, after occupying the area, there
was no effort to secure weapons and ammunition left behind the Iraq armed
forces, which were disbanded and left to the designs of individuals. And
finally, the much ballyhooed (sp?) rebuilding of Iraq has hardly begun,
if it has at all. Iraq was a wellfunctioning country as far as economics
was concerned. Now it is a total shambles. And I (and you) have to pay
for it!!!

And yes, indeed I have not suffered severe financial hardships, but my
work has been rather much impeded for lack of funds. The NIH budget has
gone down in real terms, and now it is being wasted in part because
salaries are being continued, but real work is much slowed because of the
need to write more and more grant applications. These are being denied
simply because they are first submissions or frst resubmissions, there
may be a chance of funding for second or third resubmissions.

/end of rant


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Eigenvector" wrote:

Since this appears to be the cornerstone of your argument. What
specifically have YOU experienced in the last 8 years that has led
you to believe Bush to be incompetent?

If you need the obvious explained to you, where would you like to
start?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Which ideas are these?

Pick one. energy,

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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

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.

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

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

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.

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.

Ohhhh, I am getting excited. It's a Bush=Satan line of
reasoning - one of the traditional forms of formal proof
will follow now doubt.


Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
leader.

Assuming it is the job of the government to resolve this issue
is the sign of collectivism.


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.


Nonsense. "Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling. There
are all manner of related hyrdrocarbon based fuels that come into
play such as CNG, shale oil, and so forth. The earth worshiping
pantheists (aka environmentalists that flunked science) have so
polluted the culture with their foolishness that people go
around mindlessly repeating "we can't drill our way out of this
problem." We *have* to be drilling, now and in the future to
maintain a consistent energy supply. Over time, we may migrate
to other forms of energy, but for the foreseeable future, transportation
depends on drilling.

We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
extracting, to solve the problem.

Again, total nonsense. We don't have enough oil of interest to
the big eeeeeeeevillll oil companies *when the force of government
is used to artificially distort the price of the product*. In the
face of higher fuel prices the collectivist politicians screamed
that the oil companies were making too much money and should pay
a "windfall" tax - this despite of the fact that government
at all levels extracts more in taxes per dollar of gasoline than
the big eeeeeeeeevill oil companies make in profit. As prices
rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
taxation entities. In that face of that kind of Hugo Chavez
mentality here in the West, I don't blame the oil companies for
being unenthusiastic about making multi-billion dollar capital
investments.


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.

*All* resources are "finite". Markets cause those resources to flow
efficiently to the places with greatest scarcity. Government
"policy" distorts this process and makes it less efficient.
I don't want people who cannot make the TSA effective deciding
energy policy. If you think the airport screen process is well
executed, by all means, demand more government action in areas
like energy, healthcare, and education. Perhaps we can reduce
all three of those to the level of the mindless drones counting
shampoo bottles on the conveyor belt.


Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4%
of the population),


Because that 4% is also the world's most *productive*. It is that 4%
the developed the very process of extracting and refining oil to make
energy portable. That 4% industrialized the world, created modern
science, technology, transportation, and medicine. But collectivists
don't like that. They want everything to be "equal". If we listen to
them today, we will all be equally *poor*.

This is the same moronic argument used to attack the rich, "Well only
1% of the planet has 98% of the wealth" or some such stupidity. But
there is a *reason* for this situation. Human progress requires
*concentration of assets* (aka "capital formation") whether those
assets are energy, money, or skill. When you see assets concentrated,
you should celebrate it - it is the primary vector for human
advancement - advancement that benefits *all* of humanity, not just
those with the concentrated assets. Sub-Saharan Africans have access
to some level of life-saving drugs today because of wealth concentrated
in the West. Tens of millions of people live better lives today because
of the wealth of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Scott McNeilly, and Steve
Jobs. Many other examples abound, but collectivists love to whine
about the concentration of assets like it is a horrible thing.



is the other major problem it has created, global warming.

You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
as facts. With all the howling from earth worshiping pantheists
there is still *no* demonstration of causation between human
action and the very mild warming currently observed. There is
certainly correlation (to the degree that clean data are even
available) and there may in fact be an anthropogenic component
to global warming, but "it has created global warming" is a vastly
overstated assertion and at some levels - flatly wrong.
"Global warming" was taking place on- and off, long before there
was any use of carbon fuels on planet earth (by humans). If there
is any anthropogenic component to global warming, it is additive
to natural processes, not a sole cause in and of itself.


Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.

They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.


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.

So it is theorized. However, it is also clear that he interactions
between the components of the biosphere are so complex that an
"explanation" like yours above is laughably oversimplified. It may
well be that this is a huge problem. It may also be that there
are natural feedback processes that ameliorate this to some or
even a large extent. The best mathematicians and scientists on
the planet don't remotely understand this, but you're sure that
it's a problem.


IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
half of the 21st century.

Finally, you admit this is your *opinion*.


We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we
will get our clocks cleaned.

Sure. When do I buy a prayer mat and kneel next to you in your
pantheism?


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.

Now we get to the heart of it. It's W's fault!!!!!! Please
take a moment to wipe the drool from your chin.


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.

And you have done nothing more than "spit out" standard environmentalist
dogma absent even the slightest indication that you understand
the subtlety and nuance of any of the issue.


Times are changing, they need a serious update.


He may very well have some new ideas, but he hasn't presented them.

Lew




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:

You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15
second
bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail
banking
failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use
of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility
plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Even Palin can't explain the Fannie Mae deal in 15 seconds or two
days!

As to the electrical power plant thing, yes, but.

"BUT" we are not now using oil to generate electricity at more than a
handful of locations.

Nearly 80% of our transportation infrastructure, however, depends upon
oil.

We impose a tax ($0.50/gallon) on imported Ethanol. THis needs to be
eliminated.

We require an FM radio in all vehicles sold in the US, but do not
require they be "multi-fuel" capable (adds about $120 to the
production cost).

We lease oil reserves (on and off shore) without adding "explore it or
lose it" language to the leases.
(80% of the leases controled by Oil Corps sit idle as we
speak)

OPEC has a big say in US energy production.

They decide what they will produce and, thus, influence the
price per bbl at will.
They added two new producing nations to OPEC without
increasing output by a single barrel.
Thus, effectively reducing world supplies!

Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed
CAFE standards intended to reduce US demand

Our fleet used to include millions of propane-fueled vehicles - many
sit in junk-yards today. These could be converted to Picken's NG, no?
If we can build propane cars and trucks, we can build NG cars
and trucks
Every converted vehicle reduces US demand and puts pressure
on OPEC

Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed
significant incentives for personal Hybrid purchases
You might get $2,000.00 if you bought a Prius, but it would
cost you five grand more than a Hyundai
They supported a four-year recaprure on the purchase of a
Hummer for small business amounting to nearly forty-grand
worth of incentives to put those monsters in every real
estate office in the land.

Big Oil wants to lease the rest of the sites before drilling on what
they have under lease now. Why is that?
Control. If they can lease it all, they control all drilling
in the US and thus
they can have their own little OPEC.
There will be no competition possble - no maverick upstart
company could lease a site and start drilling
as there would be no more leases available.

In fairness, the Republicans are good businessmen - savvy folks who
know how to keep America's oil companies profitable.
Folks who know better than I how to keep them earning big bucks and
protect their future earnings. Folks who may have tunnel vision.
Folks who may not see the the health, safety and well-being of our
citizens as a higher value than protecting Capitalist perogatives.

They are working these schemes for our own good



..

On Sep 11, 8:11*pm, "todd" wrote:

you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. *But
I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the
above.


Yes, but, when he goes on National Television or at stump speeches he
and Palin do so well, they do not talk about these things in any
meaningful way.

They complain about "the Liberal Media" construing their words, but -
when they have the opportunity to speak directly to the people in a
live broadcast, they obfuscate like all hell and talk about scary
Muslims wanting to blow us up and how great our troops are doing in
the tough situation they put them in.

Yes, some can go to the web site and pour over self-serving statements
designed to give the appearance of change and effective planning for a
better future, But when we tune in to hear about it first hand, our
hear then respond to serious questioners, we get pablum.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

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.

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.


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.


We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
extracting, to solve the problem.


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

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?)


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


There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Different problem


IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
half of the 21st century.


Gore talking point


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.


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.

I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that
Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.


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

Mark & Juanita writes:

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.

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.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:BzCyk.32$1a2.12@trnddc04...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Which ideas are these?

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

So many to choose from but still unable to present even a token specific
.......

What exactly didn't work?

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

Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny example
of a specific example of your point. Obviously you feel there is no purpose
in presenting a simple fact when broad strokes of empty allegations will do.

Why? What makes you think McCain isn't his own man?......If any main
stream politician beats to his own drummer, surely McCain does.

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

Only in your own mind.....your confusing empty Obama campaign rhetoric with
thinking for yourself. If I'm wrong I'd still be happy to hear anything that
proves such silly allegations. Rod

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point.

snip

Dem talking points #2 and #3.

Gore talking point

Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December
2000,
nothing he could have done would have changed that.

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

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny
example of a specific example of your point.

Time out.

I made a statement, you chose to challenge it.

No problem; however, the burden of proof of your challenge is in your
court, not mine.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point.

snip

Dem talking points #2 and #3.

Gore talking point

Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December
2000,
nothing he could have done would have changed that.

Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.


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].

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

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

On Sep 13, 4:50*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point.

snip

*Dem talking points #2 and #3.

*Gore talking point

*Of course not. *Bush has been an object of hatred since December
2000,
nothing he could have done would have changed that.

Name calling and attack seems to be your approach.

* 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]. *

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

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

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!!"

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

snip

As (gas) prices
rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
taxation entities.

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.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

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.

IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the
Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let
McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?

As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did
she and she let Obama get too good a start.

Paul Franklin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:02:07 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

snip

As (gas) prices
rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
taxation entities.

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.

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
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
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.

IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the
Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let
McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?

As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did
she and she let Obama get too good a start.



I think Hillary would be the Dems nominee if georgeous John Edwards
hadn't sucked up enough votes from her to let BO sneak through.

There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a
government paid position of food taster.

On Sep 14, 12:14*am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
[snip]

There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a
government paid position of food taster.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...oy/Disdain.jpg