PDA

View Full Version : We are #1....


OBF1
03-06-2011, 10:09 AM
California.... Yeah thats right suckers ROFL!


California has taken over top spot in a race we’d rather not win.

The Golden State is now the nation’s leader when it comes to highest gas prices — surpassing Hawaii and Alaska, where gas prices are almost always the highest in the country.

KNX 1070′s Chris Sedens reports that the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded is now $3.85. Experts blame the increased price of oil and the rigors of making California’s clean-burning gasoline.

The pain at the pump is pushing up prices on food and other items as well. Wholesalers tack on delivery fees coupled with high fuel costs.

The last time California’s prices were higher than Hawaii and Alaska on a regular basis was in 2008 when the price spiked at $4.61 a gallon


Just another reason to call California home

HILife
03-06-2011, 10:18 AM
http://www.popular-pics.com/PPImages/arnold_schwarzenegger.jpg

Arnold does not approve. He says, legalize this, and all will be fixed.

http://www.moonbattery.com/Schwarzenegger_smokes.jpg

Popps
03-06-2011, 10:19 AM
I threw a 20-spot into the tank yesterday and glanced at the gauge... the ****ing thing didn't move.

Luckily, my commute is about a mile. :)

cutthemdown
03-06-2011, 12:09 PM
I only drive about 10 thousand miles a year so no biggie. Still though it would be nice for them to make a law where once prices go to a certain level they drop some of the liberal gas taxes we have.

Dukes
03-06-2011, 12:26 PM
Home values have gone down though, so its a wash

SonOfLe-loLang
03-06-2011, 12:33 PM
yeah, i only drive like 7000 miles a year, in a hybrid, so im only filling up like once a month. Its hardly shocking that gas prices are high though. better hope Saudi Arabia stays stable, otherwise they are gonna be a lot higher

SonOfLe-loLang
03-06-2011, 12:35 PM
I only drive about 10 thousand miles a year so no biggie. Still though it would be nice for them to make a law where once prices go to a certain level they drop some of the liberal gas taxes we have.


Hell, ill gladly pay more in gas tax if it means they'll fix the goddamn pot holes. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE NOW

Broncos_OTM
03-06-2011, 12:57 PM
yeah, i only drive like 7000 miles a year, in a hybrid, so im only filling up like once a month. Its hardly shocking that gas prices are high though. better hope Saudi Arabia stays stable, otherwise they are gonna be a lot higher

If i was a president i woulddeclare war on them and take there oil. i wonder why they never do that...

oubronco
03-06-2011, 01:43 PM
I reccomend getting a bike

ghwk
03-06-2011, 01:43 PM
Hmm have supplies actually been disrupted in any meaningful way? Umm, NOPE! Taking it up the arse again due solely to the traders when nothing in reality has changed. Cool business if you can get it.

OBF1
03-06-2011, 01:55 PM
Lets be real.... Oil companies have posted record earnings the past couple of years. High prices is all on Obama :)

AZorange1
03-06-2011, 01:56 PM
I moved to California in 1961 from New York. See ya snow. Could not have wanted a better place to grow up when I was 12-13. Loved Calif. to death. Fishing was great, surfed almost every day, and when I graduated from 1000 Oaks HS in 1967 I got a job and bought a brand new 1967 SS396 Chevelle metallic blue. Gas was 74 cents a gallon and I think my payment was 96.00 a month. I was making 6.00 an hour and had money to burn. THEN IT HAPPENED. Greetings from Uncle Sam. Time to go to Viet Nam. Worse part of the whole thing is what happened to Calif while I was gone. It turned to crap. I went to Lowry in Denver in 68 and fell in love with Colorado and stayed there until 3 years ago whern health required me to leave. Been driving pick-ups since until this year when I finally got tired of putting $40 a week in my tank and all I do is go to the store and putz around. Now I got me one of those Nissans that you only have to put gas in once a month. Miss my trucks big time (can't see nothing from down low) BUT I can drive all over the place on a tank of gas a month. It will NEVER go back below $3 a gallon and it's here to stay. Can't handle going back to Calif. even for visits, prefer to remember the way it was.

JJJ
03-06-2011, 02:06 PM
I moved to California in 1961 from New York. See ya snow. Could not have wanted a better place to grow up when I was 12-13. Loved Calif. to death. Fishing was great, surfed almost every day, and when I graduated from 1000 Oaks HS in 1967 I got a job and bought a brand new 1967 SS396 Chevelle metallic blue. Gas was 74 cents a gallon and I think my payment was 96.00 a month. I was making 6.00 an hour and had money to burn. THEN IT HAPPENED. Greetings from Uncle Sam. Time to go to Viet Nam. Worse part of the whole thing is what happened to Calif while I was gone. It turned to crap. I went to Lowry in Denver in 68 and fell in love with Colorado and stayed there until 3 years ago whern health required me to leave. Been driving pick-ups since until this year when I finally got tired of putting $40 a week in my tank and all I do is go to the store and putz around. Now I got me one of those Nissans that you only have to put gas in once a month. Miss my trucks big time (can't see nothing from down low) BUT I can drive all over the place on a tank of gas a month. It will NEVER go back below $3 a gallon and it's here to stay. Can't handle going back to Calif. even for visits, prefer to remember the way it was.

SoCal in the 60's and 70's was indeed a great place to grow up. Down San Diego way it was like Iowa on the beach. Lots of farms and lots and lots of open space back in the hills. Throw in the beach and it was pretty much a teenager paradise. The hills are now full with houses. Lost a lot of its charm that is for sure. Still like to go back though.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-06-2011, 02:12 PM
Lets be real.... Oil companies have posted record earnings the past couple of years. High prices is all on Obama :)

Oil prices arent controlled by America.

Connecticut Bronco Fan
03-06-2011, 02:28 PM
3.75 here today, =/

and will rise soon too the governor of CT is raising the taxes on just about everything.

Ugly Duck
03-06-2011, 02:31 PM
If i was a president i woulddeclare war on them and take there oil. i wonder why they never do that...

Back in '03 the Bush Administration told us the Iraq war would be paid for with Iraqi oil. After the invasion they said oh what the hey - let's just not include the money in the budget & add it straight to the national debt.

I paid $4.09 in the North Bay yesterday - here's the sign they had out front:

http://www.moonbattery.com/gas-prices.jpg

OBF1
03-06-2011, 03:17 PM
Oil prices arent controlled by America.

please read before posting.. I stated RECORD PROFITS. Not prices, though they do go directly hand in hand.

Cmac821
03-06-2011, 03:21 PM
$3.25 here in Amarillo and we have some of the higher prices in the area. Good news is the city is so damn small you are only ever on the road for 5-10 minutes at a time.

HooptyHoops
03-06-2011, 04:12 PM
Back in '03 the Bush Administration told us the Iraq war would be paid for with Iraqi oil. After the invasion they said oh what the hey - let's just not include the money in the budget & add it straight to the national debt.

I paid $4.09 in the North Bay yesterday - here's the sign they had out front:

http://www.moonbattery.com/gas-prices.jpg

Dang, $4.09....and I thought $3.27 was BS! I lived in Colorado for about 17 years, but have now been in Iowa for about 14....never understood why gas was so cheap here, as it really is in the middle of no where....

chadta
03-06-2011, 04:15 PM
$1.25 here

thats for a liter tho, and 1 Us gallon = 3.8 liters, so im paying 4.75 per gallon, and we are a net oil exporting nation, i think we are the only net exporting nation in the world actually paying market price for oil, thank god for capitalism.

SoCalBronco
03-06-2011, 05:00 PM
Not looking forward to losing the company car and company gas card in June. ****.

Requiem
03-06-2011, 05:19 PM
I picked the wrong time to look into investing in my first personal vehicle with expected gas prices the way they are. Prices up here in Fargo are around $3.39 most places, give or take ten cents depending on where you are at. That's not bad compared to some places, but still is ridiculous.

Taking the bus to work now does just fine and that is only 40$ a month. When I move at the end of May, I'll get somewhere closer to work just so it is less of a commute.

Archer81
03-06-2011, 05:29 PM
$1.25 here

thats for a liter tho, and 1 Us gallon = 3.8 liters, so im paying 4.75 per gallon, and we are a net oil exporting nation, i think we are the only net exporting nation in the world actually paying market price for oil, thank god for capitalism.


And I'm sure there are no taxes at all on that gasoline to support social programs...

:Broncos:

Mogulseeker
03-06-2011, 05:45 PM
Peak oil. Gas prices will never go down.... they will just go up and up until it gets to $16 a gallon and then people might get serious about sustainable energy.

Mogulseeker
03-06-2011, 05:49 PM
I own my 2005 VW Passat. My next car will be public transportation.

chadta
03-06-2011, 05:58 PM
And I'm sure there are no taxes at all on that gasoline to support social programs...

:Broncos:

there are, but even without taxes we pay the going rate plus almost 20%, thanks to letting the oil companies all merge, we only have 4 oil companies left in Canada and they control 97% of the market. It wouldn't be so bad if they used the gas taxes to actually pay for roads and what not, but we still have bridges falling down, and pot holes big enough to lose a prius in.

Archer81
03-06-2011, 07:43 PM
there are, but even without taxes we pay the going rate plus almost 20%, thanks to letting the oil companies all merge, we only have 4 oil companies left in Canada and they control 97% of the market. It wouldn't be so bad if they used the gas taxes to actually pay for roads and what not, but we still have bridges falling down, and pot holes big enough to lose a prius in.


Prius drivers...the leading cause of Smug.

Gasoline is ridulously taxed. The city, county, state and federal government each have some type of fuel tax. That does not take into account speculation on oil resources and the taxes oil companies pay added to it. Over priced commodity but unfortunately one that is needed. And I agree on the potholes and bridges...wasnt that the original point of a fuel tax? To help pay for infrastructure?

:Broncos:

Ugly Duck
03-06-2011, 08:30 PM
Dang, $4.09....and I thought $3.27 was BS! I lived in Colorado for about 17 years, but have now been in Iowa for about 14....never understood why gas was so cheap here, as it really is in the middle of no where....

The Chevron refinery is right across the Bay from here. I guess we pay more here to cover the cost of shipping the gas to you guyz.

DarkHorse30
03-06-2011, 09:07 PM
3.02 in MT........frakin cool

AZorange1
03-06-2011, 09:40 PM
SoCal in the 60's and 70's was indeed a great place to grow up. Down San Diego way it was like Iowa on the beach. Lots of farms and lots and lots of open space back in the hills. Throw in the beach and it was pretty much a teenager paradise. The hills are now full with houses. Lost a lot of its charm that is for sure. Still like to go back though.

Actually lived up and around Julian for a few years too. California last untold secret. Closest thing to Colorado that you can get in SoCal. All downhill to Ramona or Escondido one way and the other way all downhill to Anza Borrego and the Salton Sea.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-06-2011, 09:41 PM
Peak oil. Gas prices will never go down.... they will just go up and up until it gets to $16 a gallon and then people might get serious about sustainable energy.

Its not a peak oil thing, its a supply/demand thing along with overpopulation. With countries like India and China seriously industrializing, demand is way up so, of course, the oil companies are taking advantage of this.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-06-2011, 09:44 PM
Prius drivers...the leading cause of Smug.

Gasoline is ridulously taxed. The city, county, state and federal government each have some type of fuel tax. That does not take into account speculation on oil resources and the taxes oil companies pay added to it. Over priced commodity but unfortunately one that is needed. And I agree on the potholes and bridges...wasnt that the original point of a fuel tax? To help pay for infrastructure?

:Broncos:

And none of this tax money actually goes to Uncle Sam.

broncocalijohn
03-06-2011, 09:46 PM
yeah, i only drive like 7000 miles a year, in a hybrid, so im only filling up like once a month. Its hardly shocking that gas prices are high though. better hope Saudi Arabia stays stable, otherwise they are gonna be a lot higher

No ****! I just filled up at Sams Club for $3.71. Last time I filled up earlier in the week was $3.63 and last Sunday was $3.50. That, my friends, is one of the cheapest places to buy gas. I bought a membership just for their cheap gas. Last year, I bought a cooked $5 chicken and thousands of dollars on their gas.
Dont fret CBF, the higher sales tax in the nation at 8.25%* and probably close to 10% where you live will keep us #1 in other catagories that we wish we didnt belong. Maybe the stupid voters here will go along with Gov. Brown (I cant believe he got elected here again) 5 year extension push to continue to keep Calif taxed to death and have the highest taxes! When you raise the taxes and fees and your budget goes from $18 billion to $26 billion, it must be working! Hilarious!

* States with the highest sales tax are: California (8.25%), Indiana (7%), Mississippi (7%), New Jersey (7%), Rhode Island (7%), Tennessee (7%), Minnesota (6.875%), Nevada (6.85%), Arizona (6.6%), Washington (6.5%), Kansas (6.3%), Texas and Illinois (6.25%).

MrPeepers
03-07-2011, 05:38 AM
I'm driving from Phoenix to Denver next weekend. A plane flight is 347$ with no car and driving is 209$ in Gas in my 2008 VW Passat @30mpg. 1400 mile one way drive. Need a railroad!

HooptyHoops
03-07-2011, 07:16 AM
The Chevron refinery is right across the Bay from here. I guess we pay more here to cover the cost of shipping the gas to you guyz.

It has always cracked me up, as when I'm out there and drive down the coast and see all the oil rigs and think, "Why in the heck is it so expensive here, as it all starts here." Either way, gas is just getting crazy again!

TonyR
03-07-2011, 07:41 AM
I picked the wrong time to look into investing in my first personal vehicle...

You're not "investing". You're "spending".

schaaf
03-07-2011, 08:05 AM
3.02 in MT........frakin cool

I would be willing to pay extra for gas if it meant some of the snow would melt! :approve:

~Crash~
03-07-2011, 09:35 AM
I threw a 20-spot into the tank yesterday and glanced at the gauge... the ****ing thing didn't move.

Luckily, my commute is about a mile. :)

time to buy a scooter hell I would just walk there!

I got nothing remotely close to my house..,.****!

Tombstone RJ
03-07-2011, 09:43 AM
Its not a peak oil thing, its a supply/demand thing along with overpopulation. With countries like India and China seriously industrializing, demand is way up so, of course, the oil companies are taking advantage of this.

wrong again. There is no "overpopulation." Especially in America where we no do not have sufficient work force to pay for all the retiring baby boomers. Thanks to liberal movements like abortion, an entire generation of taxable workers has been murdered.

Thanks liberals and feminists, thanks for nothing.

Overpopulation is a myth, just ask the Chinese who are now regretting their birth quota's and systematic infanticide of female babies.

Thanks commies, thanks for nothing.

Mr.Meanie
03-07-2011, 09:53 AM
wrong again. There is no "overpopulation." Especially in America where we no do not have sufficient work force to pay for all the retiring baby boomers. Thanks to liberal movements like abortion, an entire generation of taxable workers has been murdered.

Thanks liberals and feminists, thanks for nothing.

Overpopulation is a myth, just ask the Chinese who are now regretting their birth quota's and systematic infanticide of female babies.

Thanks commies, thanks for nothing.


1. Make post to complain about aging population's drain on society.
2. Blame liberal abortion "movement" for not adding to said population.
3. ??
4. Profit

maven
03-07-2011, 10:00 AM
Gas is expensive now. I dunno, but I never really think twice about it. Have to fill the tank up to keep on the move.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 10:05 AM
wrong again. There is no "overpopulation." Especially in America where we no do not have sufficient work force to pay for all the retiring baby boomers. Thanks to liberal movements like abortion, an entire generation of taxable workers has been murdered.

Thanks liberals and feminists, thanks for nothing.

Overpopulation is a myth, just ask the Chinese who are now regretting their birth quota's and systematic infanticide of female babies.

Thanks commies, thanks for nothing.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA you are a ****ing joke. Blaming abortion for an entire generation of taxable workers. Wow. But i have no doubt you are strongly against immigration, which of course, can usher in an entirely new generation of taxable workers. What a joke.

And, yes, the world is over populated and will continue to be. It'll drain food supply, oil supply and thats just the reality of things.

And, ummm, last time I checked, China had a billion people in it, I dont think they wish they had more. Now a more educated population, sure....but just more people? Ummm no.

~Crash~
03-07-2011, 10:13 AM
Hmm have supplies actually been disrupted in any meaningful way? Umm, NOPE! Taking it up the arse again due solely to the traders when nothing in reality has changed. Cool business if you can get it.

I personally would not tell anyone I was in that business! Yep all them fancy ass laws and not one protects us from this. at what point does this break the back of this country... If all your money goes in tanks there is no money for buying thing ...no Buying thing people do not work... seeing people hitch hiking and on the sides of the road begging for a take of gas to get back home. yep this sucks...:sunshine:

Jason in LA
03-07-2011, 10:20 AM
I went to Big Bear for some snow boarding this weekend. Gas topped $4 a gallon. That's just not right.

TonyR
03-07-2011, 10:24 AM
wrong again. There is no "overpopulation." Especially in America where we no do not have sufficient work force to pay for all the retiring baby boomers. Thanks to liberal movements like abortion, an entire generation of taxable workers has been murdered.

Thanks liberals and feminists, thanks for nothing.

Overpopulation is a myth, just ask the Chinese who are now regretting their birth quota's and systematic infanticide of female babies.

Thanks commies, thanks for nothing.

This has to be a parody post, right?!? Right?!? Please tell me you're kidding...

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 10:29 AM
This has to be a parody post, right?!? Right?!? Please tell me you're kidding...

He's not.

Tombstone RJ
03-07-2011, 10:51 AM
Over population is a myth, I'm not joking about that...

Mogulseeker
03-07-2011, 03:28 PM
Its not a peak oil thing, its a supply/demand thing along with overpopulation. With countries like India and China seriously industrializing, demand is way up so, of course, the oil companies are taking advantage of this.

That to. Maybe for the short term, but thinking long term, people should really be focusing their fossil fuel consumption on making renewable, sustainable energy sources.

One $30,000 solar panel, when you think about it, really isn't that much to put on a new house. What's $230,000 if you're paying $200,000 - or you can get a smaller house. And over a lifetime you'll actually save money.

Tombstone RJ
03-07-2011, 04:51 PM
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA you are a ****ing joke. Blaming abortion for an entire generation of taxable workers. Wow. But i have no doubt you are strongly against immigration, which of course, can usher in an entirely new generation of taxable workers. What a joke.

And, yes, the world is over populated and will continue to be. It'll drain food supply, oil supply and thats just the reality of things.

And, ummm, last time I checked, China had a billion people in it, I dont think they wish they had more. Now a more educated population, sure....but just more people? Ummm no.

Current estimates on the death toll from abortion in the USA is at 50 million. That's 50 million people who don't exist because abortion is used as a form of birth control which it was never intended to be.

Of those 50 million people that never were, perhaps we've lost the next Einstein or the next Shakespeare or the next Thomas Edison... we will never know. And yes, that's 50 million potential workers, consumers, moms, dads, artists, football players, scientists, teachers, lawyers (ok, well that ain't so bad), doctors, etc...

And no, I'm not against imigration at all.

Another fact your ignorant ass probably is unaware of, because your a liberal moron who has been brain washed by the Cali system (which is failing badly in every way) is that ABORTION AFFECTS MINORITES MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

So go ahead and be pro-abortion. It's a convinient way to mask your own bigotry. Obviously you hate people of color because they are the ones who are destroying themselves the fastest.

Congrats broseff, you've failed again.

Mogulseeker
03-07-2011, 04:55 PM
Current estimates on the death toll from abortion in the USA is at 50 million. That's 50 million people who don't exist because abortion is used as a form of birth control which it was never intended to be.

Of those 50 million people that never were, perhaps we've lost the next Einstein or the next Shakespeare or the next Thomas Edison... we will never know. And yes, that's 50 million potential workers, consumers, moms, dads, artists, football players, scientists, teachers, lawyers (ok, well that ain't so bad), doctors, etc...

And no, I'm not against imigration at all.

Another fact your ignorant ass probably is unaware of, because your a liberal moron who has been brain washed by the Cali system (which is failing badly in every way) is that ABORTION AFFECTS MINORITES MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

So go ahead and be pro-abortion. It's a convinient way to mask your own bigotry. Obviously you hate people of color because they are the ones who are destroying themselves the fastest.

Congrats broseff, you've failed again.

People who have abortions are typically mothers who cant provide for a kid. Poverty, runaway dads, teenage moms, crack addicts.... Thomas Edisons don't come from that crop, Charles Mansons do...

Tombstone RJ
03-07-2011, 05:00 PM
People who have abortions are typically mothers who cant provide for a kid. Poverty, runaway dads, teenage moms, crack addicts.... Thomas Edisons don't come from that crop, Charles Mansons do...

wow, that's lame. So you're saying abortion is good because all these potential people were losers... you're sick bro.

hiel hitler!

Mogulseeker
03-07-2011, 05:04 PM
It's also a little funny to blame abortion on losing a generation of taxable workers... where did you get that figure of 50 million? That's laughable as well. The population of the United States is 300 million, so to say 50 million children aborted would be 1/6 of the population. With a life expectancy of 73, that's about in between a half and a whole generation. Say that two generations are fertile, then divide the population in half (only women can have abortions) and you're basically saying that one in two women have had abortions.

The replacement rate is a fertility rate of 2.0. In the US that rate stands at 2.4 - higher than Canada or any country in Europe.

I'm more worried about China financing our debt and stockpiling dollars and moving toward greater elements of GINI cohesion. The junk that Americans buy is going to be much more expensive in the future.

Oh also, the two presidents that supported planned parenthood were Republicans. In fact, abortion really wasn't prominent at all until Nixon really started to hark it up.

OBF1
03-07-2011, 05:08 PM
Tombstone...what freekin planet do you live on? So out of those "50 million" abortions you claim have been done, none of them would have gone on to be mass murderers, drug sellers/users, rapists, child molesters, life long criminals or just plain uneducated people or even worse more people like you? All of those mention above are a burden on the tax base, not contributors.

No worldwide over population, you are just plain stupid. Tell me about all the honest, caring politicians in America while you are under the influence.

Mogulseeker
03-07-2011, 05:10 PM
Tombstone...what freekin planet do you live on? So out of those "50 million" abortions you claim have been done, none of them would have gone on to be mass murderers, drug sellers/users, rapists, child molesters, life long criminals or just plain uneducated people or even worse more people like you?

No worldwide over population, you are just plain stupid. Tell me about all the honest, caring politicians in America while you are under the influence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2027079.stm
http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf

Mogulseeker
03-07-2011, 05:22 PM
hiel hitler!

You said it, not me haha.

Tombstone RJ
03-07-2011, 05:29 PM
It's also a little funny to blame abortion on losing a generation of taxable workers... where did you get that figure of 50 million? That's laughable as well. The population of the United States is 300 million, so to say 50 million children aborted would be 1/6 of the population. With a life expectancy of 73, that's about in between a half and a whole generation. Say that two generations are fertile, then divide the population in half (only women can have abortions) and you're basically saying that one in two women have had abortions.

The replacement rate is a fertility rate of 2.0. In the US that rate stands at 2.4 - higher than Canada or any country in Europe.

I'm more worried about China financing our debt and stockpiling dollars and moving toward greater elements of GINI cohesion. The junk that Americans buy is going to be much more expensive in the future.

from 1973 to 2008 nearly 50 million legal abortions have been performed in the USA:

http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Tombstone RJ
03-07-2011, 05:31 PM
You said it, not me haha.

You're the one who justifies the murder of the so called "poverty, run away dads, teenage moms...." not me broseff.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 05:43 PM
Current estimates on the death toll from abortion in the USA is at 50 million. That's 50 million people who don't exist because abortion is used as a form of birth control which it was never intended to be.

Of those 50 million people that never were, perhaps we've lost the next Einstein or the next Shakespeare or the next Thomas Edison... we will never know. And yes, that's 50 million potential workers, consumers, moms, dads, artists, football players, scientists, teachers, lawyers (ok, well that ain't so bad), doctors, etc...

And no, I'm not against imigration at all.

Another fact your ignorant ass probably is unaware of, because your a liberal moron who has been brain washed by the Cali system (which is failing badly in every way) is that ABORTION AFFECTS MINORITES MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

So go ahead and be pro-abortion. It's a convinient way to mask your own bigotry. Obviously you hate people of color because they are the ones who are destroying themselves the fastest.

Congrats broseff, you've failed again.

One, i am so ****ing sick of you calling Cali a liberal experiment when we have NOTHING LIBERALS FIGHT FOR. Gays cant even get ****ing married in our state. Is the cali government a fail? Of course. But its not some liberal dream run amok. That said, I cant wait till Gavin Newsom is president for no other reason than it'll give you a panic attack.

2) NO ONE IS PRO ABORTION, WE ARE PRO CHOICE! There is a HUGE distinction there. And as far as all you pro life ****s, (keep the government out of my life until it comes to my fetus, then tell me what to do), you all seem to think life begins at conception and ends at birth. Cause once those babies come out, you don't seem to really want to do anything to protect them...you know...like giving people healthcare.

I'm so sick of your ignorance to all things political.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 05:44 PM
from 1973 to 2008 nearly 50 million legal abortions have been performed in the USA:

http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Last time i checked, abortions were legal. Its a woman's choice, and sometimes its the correct choice for them.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 05:48 PM
It's also a little funny to blame abortion on losing a generation of taxable workers... where did you get that figure of 50 million? That's laughable as well. The population of the United States is 300 million, so to say 50 million children aborted would be 1/6 of the population. With a life expectancy of 73, that's about in between a half and a whole generation. Say that two generations are fertile, then divide the population in half (only women can have abortions) and you're basically saying that one in two women have had abortions.

The replacement rate is a fertility rate of 2.0. In the US that rate stands at 2.4 - higher than Canada or any country in Europe.

I'm more worried about China financing our debt and stockpiling dollars and moving toward greater elements of GINI cohesion. The junk that Americans buy is going to be much more expensive in the future.

Oh also, the two presidents that supported planned parenthood were Republicans. In fact, abortion really wasn't prominent at all until Nixon really started to hark it up.

if Nixon came back to earth and held the beliefs he did as president, he'd be considered a communist by all new conservatives.

Mogulseeker
03-07-2011, 07:24 PM
if Nixon came back to earth and held the beliefs he did as president, he'd be considered a communist by all new conservatives.

I don't know about that, but Nixon was actually a pretty good president - the entire global floating exchange rate system was his doing. That, and Nixon would definitely be a Democrat by today's partisan lines.

In fact, his daughter Julie (still a registered Republican) endorsed Obama in 2008.

SoCalBronco
03-07-2011, 08:31 PM
if Nixon came back to earth and held the beliefs he did as president, he'd be considered a communist by all new conservatives.

Nonsense. He was a very creative and visionary moderate. Liberal in some respects and conservative in others, but most of all, simply innovative and creative and flexible. IMO, he was responsible for winning the Cold War. It's unfortunate that Reagan blew a massive hole in the deficit when we had already won. He was masterful in laying huge traps for the Soviets. He was able to eliminate the threat of a nuclear exchange with the ABM treaty and at the same time give the Soviets reason to keep procuring offensive weapons (which they did at an alarming pace well before the 80s) and bankrupting themselves because they had to a) now fear a two front war, b) and the Interim Agreement on offensive weapons (SALT I) had very soft caps on offensive weapons and did not include a mutual ban in the area where the US had the greatest qualitative technical advantage (MIRV systems). This was just mastery. The Cold War was won in this administration. The building blocks were established by Truman and the defense apparatus (NSA, DOD, CIA etc) he set up in the late 40s and the general theory of containment (as well as the Marshall Plan) and then it was won in the early 70s by clever manuevering by Nixon. The great tragedy here is that we then proceeded to destroy our own future fiscal health with Reagan's arms buildup that was totally unnecessary. We had already won, the Russians were already building up well before the 80s...all for nothing, since they had already agreed to MAD by agreeing to dismantle their ABM systems, it didn't matter how much they spent, so long as the US simply kept up a qualitative superiority or even just a balance (or "nuclear sufficiency" as Nixon put it), the Soviets could have tons of quantitative advantages which would be meaningless so long as neither side had first strike capability...except ofcourse that it would bankrupt them. These are not liberal ideas...they are just creative ones. I don't deny that if Humphrey won, he too would have probably been more conciliatory to the communist powers, but not with these objectives, i.e. to cleverly outwit them and turn a general period of decline into an advantage....rather it would have simply been for purely friendly purposes. There's a big difference.

I'll grant you that the domestic side was bent in the liberal direction with the Clean Water Act, EPA, Legacy of Parks, affirmative action/philadephia plan, OSHA, a strong emphasis on school desegregation in the South (IMO, easily his greatest domestic achievement), SSI, food stamps, the federal war on cancer, expansion of funds on human welfare and corresponding reduction in defense spending, the tilt to Keynesian theory in 1970-1 and the wage and price controls (the latter two were not a true belief of his though, but rather they were just part of the zig-zag economic strategy of trying anything and everything to combat new problems that had not really been seen before, stagflation etc.) I wouldn't say the administration was completely liberal in domestic policy, though. For instance, FAP had elements of both liberalism (increased federal aid to the poor) and conservatism (the beginning of the workfare concept, plus the goal of completely eliminating social workers, or at least that was what Moynihan sold to Nixon), and the revenue sharing program was the intellectual precursor to the popular Republican idea of block grants to the states that took hold in the 1990s. Alot of the "returning power to the states and cities" federalism stuff that is still around got its start with the Revenue Sharing Act.There was also an emphasis on alot of law and order legislation (altho the drug treatment program that was test piloted in DC and was supposed to go national could be fairly described as very liberal). Even the environmental programs were not completely willy nilly leftist. Nixon was a pragmatist and knew that you couldn't strangle economic growth with this stuff , so they built in the cost-benefit analysis into EPA projects starting in 1971 (and while he was willing to spend 6 billion on the landmark Clean Water Act, he resisted Democrats efforts to allocate 24 billion for the bill). Unlike Reagan, he was a better representation of the Republican ideal of fiscal conservatism. He did have his deficits, but they were comparably small and rather manageable and he did preside over the last balanced budget until the late 90s. As a whole, many of these things had wide swaths of popular support among the mainstream, moderate public and were hardly even close to communist ideas. They were largely smart, sensible, moderate policies from a moderate and very successful GOP President.

schaaf
03-07-2011, 09:11 PM
Nixon was a very good president IMO that was surrounded by the wrong people

~Crash~
03-07-2011, 09:34 PM
That to. Maybe for the short term, but thinking long term, people should really be focusing their fossil fuel consumption on making renewable, sustainable energy sources.

One $30,000 solar panel, when you think about it, really isn't that much to put on a new house. What's $230,000 if you're paying $200,000 - or you can get a smaller house. And over a lifetime you'll actually save money.

Oh shut the **** up

~Crash~
03-07-2011, 09:36 PM
move this hunk of crap to were it belongs

Los Broncos
03-07-2011, 09:47 PM
And I just bought a new truck, not good at all.

Good thing I can switch cars with my gf otherwise 50-60 a week in gas sucks just to drive 20 mins to work.

Plus toll road money, that **** adds up in a hurry.

baja
03-07-2011, 09:57 PM
$2.71 here in Cabo.


8.6 pesos X 3.7854 (liters per US gallon) = 32.55 pesos per gallon = 32.55 divided by 12 = $2.71 per US gallon

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 10:17 PM
Nonsense. He was a very creative and visionary moderate. Liberal in some respects and conservative in others, but most of all, simply innovative and creative and flexible. IMO, he was responsible for winning the Cold War. It's unfortunate that Reagan blew a massive hole in the deficit when we had already won. He was masterful in laying huge traps for the Soviets. He was able to eliminate the threat of a nuclear exchange with the ABM treaty and at the same time give the Soviets reason to keep procuring offensive weapons (which they did at an alarming pace well before the 80s) and bankrupting themselves because they had to a) now fear a two front war, b) and the Interim Agreement on offensive weapons (SALT I) had very soft caps on offensive weapons and did not include a mutual ban in the area where the US had the greatest qualitative technical advantage (MIRV systems). This was just mastery. The Cold War was won in this administration. The building blocks were established by Truman and the defense apparatus (NSA, DOD, CIA etc) he set up in the late 40s and the general theory of containment (as well as the Marshall Plan) and then it was won in the early 70s by clever manuevering by Nixon. The great tragedy here is that we then proceeded to destroy our own future fiscal health with Reagan's arms buildup that was totally unnecessary. We had already won, the Russians were already building up well before the 80s...all for nothing, since they had already agreed to MAD by agreeing to dismantle their ABM systems, it didn't matter how much they spent, so long as the US simply kept up a qualitative superiority or even just a balance (or "nuclear sufficiency" as Nixon put it), the Soviets could have tons of quantitative advantages which would be meaningless so long as neither side had first strike capability...except ofcourse that it would bankrupt them. These are not liberal ideas...they are just creative ones. I don't deny that if Humphrey won, he too would have probably been more conciliatory to the communist powers, but not with these objectives, i.e. to cleverly outwit them and turn a general period of decline into an advantage....rather it would have simply been for purely friendly purposes. There's a big difference.

I'll grant you that the domestic side was bent in the liberal direction with the Clean Water Act, EPA, Legacy of Parks, affirmative action/philadephia plan, OSHA, a strong emphasis on school desegregation in the South (IMO, easily his greatest domestic achievement), SSI, food stamps, the federal war on cancer, expansion of funds on human welfare and corresponding reduction in defense spending, the tilt to Keynesian theory in 1970-1 and the wage and price controls (the latter two were not a true belief of his though, but rather they were just part of the zig-zag economic strategy of trying anything and everything to combat new problems that had not really been seen before, stagflation etc.) I wouldn't say the administration was completely liberal in domestic policy, though. For instance, FAP had elements of both liberalism (increased federal aid to the poor) and conservatism (the beginning of the workfare concept, plus the goal of completely eliminating social workers, or at least that was what Moynihan sold to Nixon), and the revenue sharing program was the intellectual precursor to the popular Republican idea of block grants to the states that took hold in the 1990s. Alot of the "returning power to the states and cities" federalism stuff that is still around got its start with the Revenue Sharing Act.There was also an emphasis on alot of law and order legislation (altho the drug treatment program that was test piloted in DC and was supposed to go national could be fairly described as very liberal). Even the environmental programs were not completely willy nilly leftist. Nixon was a pragmatist and knew that you couldn't strangle economic growth with this stuff , so they built in the cost-benefit analysis into EPA projects starting in 1971 (and while he was willing to spend 6 billion on the landmark Clean Water Act, he resisted Democrats efforts to allocate 24 billion for the bill). Unlike Reagan, he was a better representation of the Republican ideal of fiscal conservatism. He did have his deficits, but they were comparably small and rather manageable and he did preside over the last balanced budget until the late 90s. As a whole, many of these things had wide swaths of popular support among the mainstream, moderate public and were hardly even close to communist ideas. They were largely smart, sensible, moderate policies from a moderate and very successful GOP President.

My comment was more about how these new conservatives view anyone who shares a slightly left opinion. If the Nixon Healthcare Plan were brought up today? My God, the new right would shoot him dead in the streets. I didnt actually mean he WAS a communist, im saying the new right would CALL him one. Obviously, the GOP has changed a lot since 1980

Bronco Boy
03-07-2011, 10:46 PM
Of those 50 million people that never were, perhaps we've lost the next Einstein or the next Shakespeare or the next Thomas Edison... we will never know. And yes, that's 50 million potential workers, consumers, moms, dads, artists, football players, scientists, teachers, lawyers (ok, well that ain't so bad), doctors, etc...



Or maybe we lost the next Hitler, or Obama, or Damon Wayans! What's your ****ing point dude??

DarkHorse30
03-07-2011, 10:55 PM
I would be willing to pay extra for gas if it meant some of the snow would melt! :approve:

bwa ha ha, me too.

DarkHorse30
03-07-2011, 11:07 PM
My comment was more about how these new conservatives view anyone who shares a slightly left opinion. If the Nixon Healthcare Plan were brought up today? My God, the new right would shoot him dead in the streets. I didnt actually mean he WAS a communist, im saying the new right would CALL him one. Obviously, the GOP has changed a lot since 1980

the conservatives aren't afraid of a debate, it's the left that choose to smear and win that way, instead of debating the issues. Look at how they've smeared Palin.....ignoring her complete grasp of the energy issues. What is Obama's policy? Eliminate some of the best jobs in the country (oil, gas and coal mining), while promoting solar and wind power that is in it's infant stages in the middle of a recession? Brilliant. And also promote ethanol that takes food away from countries that need corn more than gasoline. It's no accident that conservatives loath Obama's policies and his czars and the way his buddies are getting rich while the rest of America suffers. Drill, baby drill.

it's funny to me that Nixon was so hated by the demmies. He gave them more govt than anybody. Reagan, OTOH (since you brought up 1980) was a godsend to the right. I'd take him again over any president since, especially Bush41. Interestingly Clinton was one of the best presidents at governing from the center. At least he had the brains to listen to what the country was shouting at him.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-07-2011, 11:11 PM
the conservatives aren't afraid of a debate, it's the left that choose to smear and win that way, instead of debating the issues. Look at how they've smeared Palin.....ignoring her complete grasp of the energy issues. What is Obama's policy? Eliminate some of the best jobs in the country (oil, gas and coal mining), while promoting solar and wind power that is in it's infant stages in the middle of a recession? Brilliant. And also promote ethanol that takes food away from countries that need corn more than gasoline. It's no accident that conservatives loath Obama's policies and his czars and the way his buddies are getting rich while the rest of America suffers. Drill, baby drill.

it's funny to me that Nixon was so hated by the demmies. He gave them more govt than anybody. Reagan, OTOH (since you brought up 1980) was a godsend to the right. I'd take him again over any president since, especially Bush41. Interestingly Clinton was one of the best presidents at governing from the center. At least he had the brains to listen to what the country was shouting at him.

Is this a joke? The DEMOCRATS bring nothing to the table? Where were you for the entirety of the healthcare debate? The dems smeared Palin because shes a ****ing idiot thats much more interested in being a celebrity than she is being a politician.

And trust me, im not some huge supporter of most of the democrats either (though ill continue support a bernie sanders, that type) but the past two years, everytime the democrats have come to the table with a bill (whether good or bed) republicans generally have said "nah" without giving much in the way of meaningful response. They have made it clear they will just be the party of no, and often have gone against some of their old ideas to fit their new agenda.

SoCalBronco
03-07-2011, 11:26 PM
Is this a joke? The DEMOCRATS bring nothing to the table? Where were you for the entirety of the healthcare debate? The dems smeared Palin because shes a ****ing idiot thats much more interested in being a celebrity than she is being a politician.

And trust me, im not some huge supporter of most of the democrats either (though ill continue support a bernie sanders, that type) but the past two years, everytime the democrats have come to the table with a bill (whether good or bed) republicans generally have said "nah" without giving much in the way of meaningful response. They have made it clear they will just be the party of no, and often have gone against some of their old ideas to fit their new agenda.

I think a good deal of the current "No" can be reasonably justified on fiscal grounds. This is simply not the proper environment for a serious expansion of benefits and obligations. It's a time for consolidation of the programs that currently are vital and worthwhile into more efficient entities, while cutting things that aren't of absolutely high priority. IMO, its totally reasonable to insist on fixing the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security (while its often claimed it can operate through 2037, the problem is alot of the money its counting on is government IOUs that were placed into the trust fund to replace funds that were raided) that are coming before we get to expanding other benefits. We could have expanded health care coverage to people in 1971 or in 1974 when the Nixon plan was pushed because the deficit was reasonable and we weren't facing a huge crisis (if ofcourse, we could offset that with other cuts, or at least slowdowns in increases to cushion the blow), but that's not the case, today. Now, working on cutting some entitlements SHOULD go hand in hand with reducing defense spending and also allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Spending cuts in all forms should be the goal. There are some aspects to the Health Care reform that we could go with at present, such as the insurance exchanges and such, since their cost would be minimal but they would still inject some competition based principles into the process to help lower costs, but not the expansion of benefits...at least not right now. We need to get our house in order, first and we also need to ensure this program doesn't end up creating a ton of obligations in the future. There is great dispute right now about how it would affect the deficit. There is a dispute as to how the CBO scores it and such.

In any case, if by "meaningful response" you mean some sort of counter proposals to extend benefits, I dont have much for you, since that's just not something I want to see right now. I'm interested in cutting...everywhere and anywhere, that includes GOP favored areas.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-08-2011, 08:27 AM
I think a good deal of the current "No" can be reasonably justified on fiscal grounds. This is simply not the proper environment for a serious expansion of benefits and obligations. It's a time for consolidation of the programs that currently are vital and worthwhile into more efficient entities, while cutting things that aren't of absolutely high priority. IMO, its totally reasonable to insist on fixing the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security (while its often claimed it can operate through 2037, the problem is alot of the money its counting on is government IOUs that were placed into the trust fund to replace funds that were raided) that are coming before we get to expanding other benefits. We could have expanded health care coverage to people in 1971 or in 1974 when the Nixon plan was pushed because the deficit was reasonable and we weren't facing a huge crisis (if ofcourse, we could offset that with other cuts, or at least slowdowns in increases to cushion the blow), but that's not the case, today. Now, working on cutting some entitlements SHOULD go hand in hand with reducing defense spending and also allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Spending cuts in all forms should be the goal. There are some aspects to the Health Care reform that we could go with at present, such as the insurance exchanges and such, since their cost would be minimal but they would still inject some competition based principles into the process to help lower costs, but not the expansion of benefits...at least not right now. We need to get our house in order, first and we also need to ensure this program doesn't end up creating a ton of obligations in the future. There is great dispute right now about how it would affect the deficit. There is a dispute as to how the CBO scores it and such.

In any case, if by "meaningful response" you mean some sort of counter proposals to extend benefits, I dont have much for you, since that's just not something I want to see right now. I'm interested in cutting...everywhere and anywhere, that includes GOP favored areas.


But the affordable care act isn't simply just an expansion of benefits and does, or starts to, do some of those things you suggested (exchanges, etc). I honestly think once the Nixon healthcare bill failed, America probably passed the point of no return as insurance companies gained too much power and doctors started making too much money. Costs have just become much too high. I dont really see how we can come back from that now.

Well, short of aliens attacking.

But lets not pretend republicans really care all that much about the deficit, if they did, the Bush tax cuts would have expired. Its just their talking point. And im not grouping YOU in with those people.

TonyR
03-08-2011, 10:30 AM
...Look at how they've smeared Palin.....

Give this a read. May open your eyes some on this topic.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/palin-and-trig-she-goes-there-again.html#tp

Tombstone RJ
03-08-2011, 01:12 PM
One, i am so ****ing sick of you calling Cali a liberal experiment when we have NOTHING LIBERALS FIGHT FOR. Gays cant even get ****ing married in our state. Is the cali government a fail? Of course. But its not some liberal dream run amok. That said, I cant wait till Gavin Newsom is president for no other reason than it'll give you a panic attack.

2) NO ONE IS PRO ABORTION, WE ARE PRO CHOICE! There is a HUGE distinction there. And as far as all you pro life ****s, (keep the government out of my life until it comes to my fetus, then tell me what to do), you all seem to think life begins at conception and ends at birth. Cause once those babies come out, you don't seem to really want to do anything to protect them...you know...like giving people healthcare.

I'm so sick of your ignorance to all things political.

The funny thing about the American abortion known as "California" is that California doesn't even keep track of how many abortions are performed in the state. Cali loves to hide its vast killing fields.

It's not about taking away a woman's right to choose. It's about abortion becoming a form of birth control. Men and women are to blame for their gross incompetence in allowing this to happen. I don't think abortion should be the first option for women, I think it should be the LAST OPTION.

What upsets me is that there are schools in the abomination known as "California" where a 16 year old girl can go to a school counselor, tell said counselor that she is pregnant and the counselor sends her off to an abortion clinic to get the proceedure done WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. That's just wrong.

Yet in this same school, this same child needs a permission slip from the parents to receive an Aspirin or an Advil.

Don't you see the extreme hypocrisy of this kind of isane liberal system that Californial protects and promotes.

It's insane.

Beantown Bronco
03-08-2011, 01:20 PM
What upsets me is that there are schools in the abomination known as "California" where a 16 year old girl can go to a school counselor, tell said counselor that she is pregnant and the counselor sends her off to an abortion clinic to get the proceedure done WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. That's just wrong.

Yet in this same school, this same child needs a permission slip from the parents to receive an Aspirin or an Advil.

Makes perfect sense to me.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96502

HAT
03-08-2011, 01:27 PM
The funny thing about the American abortion known as "California" is that California doesn't even keep track of how many abortions are performed in the state. Cali loves to hide its vast killing fields.



It would be impossible to track. I heard that by 2014 there will be more clinics in the state then McDonalds and Starbucks combined. I don't even bother taking my dog to the park anymore...Dead babies as far as the eye can see.

Tombstone RJ
03-08-2011, 01:29 PM
Or maybe we lost the next Hitler, or Obama, or Damon Wayans! What's your ****ing point dude??

There will never be a next Hitler, unless the liberal agenda who write the text books blot him out from history (which is very possible).

As for your other examples, lame.

My point is that 50 million people have been eradicated from our population. That is a staggering statistic. Who can fathom the potential of this lost generation, this lost wave of humanity, this lost country of souls?

Mogulseeker
03-08-2011, 01:36 PM
There will never be a next Hitler, unless the liberal agenda who write the text books blot him out from history (which is very possible).

As for your other examples, lame.

My point is that 50 million people have been eradicated from our population. That is a staggering statistic. Who can fathom the potential of this lost generation, this lost wave of humanity, this lost country of souls?

You do realize that 80 percent of pregnancies end in abortion without the mother even knowing it right?

AK Broncomaniac
03-08-2011, 02:03 PM
I am not pro-choice... I AM PRO LIFE!!! Regardless of the reason, you are taking a human life.

24champ
03-08-2011, 02:13 PM
I'm pro-bikinis. Can't wait for the weather to warm up...


http://www.pubclub.com/losangeles/ImagesAdd/OCHBBeachBabes.JPG

Ugly Duck
03-08-2011, 02:42 PM
There will never be a next Hitler, unless the liberal agenda who write the text books blot him out from history (which is very possible).

Why would liberals hide the worst example of right-wing extremism in history? That don't make no sense.....

Mogulseeker
03-08-2011, 02:49 PM
Why would liberals hide the worst example of right-wing extremism in history? That don't make no sense.....

Also, academics and historians tend to be liberals.

I'm pro-bikini as well.

AK Broncomaniac
03-08-2011, 03:13 PM
Also, academics and historians tend to be liberals.

I'm pro-bikini as well.

I am bikini neutral... but I am definitely pro-bikini-weather!! :)

maven
03-08-2011, 08:21 PM
Well, a gas station in Orlando is #1 now.

$5.39 a gallon.

AK Broncomaniac
03-08-2011, 08:47 PM
Wow... I guess I won't complain too much about the almost $4 a gallon here in Alaska! :(

baja
03-08-2011, 09:38 PM
UNDAY, MAY 4, 2008
BOSNIA SELLS THE MOST EXPENSIVE GASOLINE IN THE WORLD

SARAJEVO, Bosnia (May 4,2008) - Out of 155 countries surveyed, the most expensive place in the world to fill up your tank is Bosnia at $10.86 a gallon, according to a recent study from AIRINC, an international research firm that tracks cost of living data.A gallon is a measure of volume. It is in current use in the United States and still has limited use in many other English-speaking countries.U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, and is equal to 3,785411784 litres (exactly) or about 0.13368 cubic feet.

Most expensive places in the world to buy gas:

1. Bosnia $10.86
2. Eritrea $9.58
3. Norway $8.73
4. United Kingdom $8.38
5. Netherlands $8.37
6. Monaco $8.31
7. Iceland $8.28
8. Belgium $8.22
9. France $8.07
10. Germany $7.86
111. United States $3.45

As of late March, U.S. gas prices averaged $3.45 a gallon. That compares to over $8 a gallon across much of Europe.

Price comparisons are not all created equal. Comparing gas prices across nations is always difficult. For starters, the AIRINC numbers don't take into account different salaries in different countries, or the different exchange rates. The dollar has lost considerable ground to the euro recently. Because oil is priced in dollars, rising oil prices aren't as hard on people paying with currencies which are stronger than the dollar, as they can essentially buy more oil with their money as the dollar falls in value.

And then there's the varying distances people drive, the public transportation options available, and the different services people get in exchange for high gas prices. For example, Europe's stronger social safety net, including cheaper health care and higher education, is paid for partly through gas taxes.

Gas price: It's all about government policy. Gasoline costs roughly the same to make no matter where in the world it's produced, according to John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute. The difference in retail costs, he said, is that some governments subsidize gas while others tax it heavily.

In many oil producing nations gas is absurdly cheap. In Venezuela it's 12 cents a gallon. In Saudi Arabia it's 45.

The governments there forego the money from selling that oil on the open market - instead using the money to make their people happy and encourage their nations' development.

Subsidies, many analysts say, are encouraging rampant demand in these countries, pushing up the price of oil worldwide.
.

broncocalijohn
03-08-2011, 10:12 PM
It would be impossible to track. I heard that by 2014 there will be more clinics in the state then McDonalds and Starbucks combined. I don't even bother taking my dog to the park anymore...Dead babies as far as the eye can see.

Also, dogs have been digging them up as the clinics have been buring them in the dog parks.

Bronco Boy
03-08-2011, 11:30 PM
I am not pro-choice... I AM PRO LIFE!!! Regardless of the reason, you are taking a human life.

But what if those lives are Afgani? Then it's all good right?

BroncoBuff
03-08-2011, 11:37 PM
And the lowest prices in the USA ... are in Colorado (http://www.krextv.com/news/around-the-region/Coloradans-See-Lowest-Gas-Prices-In-The-Nation-112215339.html?corder=reverse).

Go Broncos.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 01:57 AM
But what if those lives are Afgani? Then it's all good right?

Funny you should say that since I worked for two years in Afghanistan, providing medical services to Afghani men, women, and children. (Yes, you spelled it wrong). Don't confuse the Afghan people with the Taliban. And btw, abortion is against the law there.

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 08:35 AM
Funny you should say that since I worked for two years in Afghanistan, providing medical services to Afghani men, women, and children. (Yes, you spelled it wrong). Don't confuse the Afghan people with the Taliban. And btw, abortion is against the law there.

Women going out in public without a headscarf is against the law there.

Cytoplasmic goo is not a person... sure, I think development starts in pregnancy, but to be safe, lets say we ban third trimester abortions. I'm cool with that.

Otherwise, abortion is often the responsible thing to do. If my mom was a homless crack addict clepto with no support system... yeah I'd rather she get an abortion than have me. She was not though.

chadta
03-09-2011, 09:49 AM
gas is up on nymex 7 cents a gallon right now, im not sure how price changes happen in the USA, but up here that means at midnight gas will go up.

bronco militia
03-09-2011, 09:50 AM
gas is up on nymex 7 cents a gallon right now, im not sure how price changes happen in the USA, but up here that means at midnight gas will go up.

gas usually goes up on Thursdays....

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 09:58 AM
Women going out in public without a headscarf is against the law there.

Cytoplasmic goo is not a person... sure, I think development starts in pregnancy, but to be safe, lets say we ban third trimester abortions. I'm cool with that.

Otherwise, abortion is often the responsible thing to do. If my mom was a homless crack addict clepto with no support system... yeah I'd rather she get an abortion than have me. She was not though.

Women going out in public without a scarf is NOT against Afghan law... it is against traditional MUSLIM law.

Abortion is NOT the responsible thing to do... birth control is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. It is ignorant to confuse the two. I do not ever expect to educate the mind of someone like you... I just feel sorry for your ignorance.

Beantown Bronco
03-09-2011, 10:04 AM
Abortion is NOT the responsible thing to do... birth control is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.

Technically speaking, abortion is a form of birth control.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 10:12 AM
For such an enlighted group of people (We are, afterall, Bronco Fans), your ignorance astounds me. I promise to bow out of this thread peacefully. :) After all, I thought it started out about the price of gas... which officiall, is over $4/gal in Alaska now. :)

broncocalijohn
03-09-2011, 11:10 AM
gas usually goes up on Thursdays....

lately it has been going up on 24 hour periods ending in "day".

chadta
03-09-2011, 11:44 AM
lately it has been going up on 24 hour periods ending in "day".

I find this interesting, for the longest time gas went down during the week, and up every weekend, even higher if it happened to be a long weekend, we were always told that the price increases had nothing to do with gouging and that gas in the tank was purchased 6 weeks ago so looking at what oil did on any given day wouldnt be expected to be an indication of the price of gas.

than something changed, and gas companies here started adjusting prices every night at midnight. Basically they charge spot price on that day, exchanged to Canadian dollars, plus taxes, plus a 15 to 20 cent margin per liter. I have been tracking this stuff, i no longer buy gas just when it is cheapest, i try to buy gas when the margin is the lowest, i have no reason for this other than i feel better if im giving as little money to the oil company as possible. I have a credit card where the reward is 10 cents per liter if i use it for a thousand dollars worth of purchases per month. So while really not changing anything i have taken half the margin from the oil company.

btw gas is up 7.5 cents now, but that is offset by the american dollar being down half a cent, so my increase will be a little smaller.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 11:50 AM
Makes me wish I didn't own a truck... well, not really. But I do now try to consolidate my trips to town. :)

Broncochica
03-09-2011, 01:33 PM
3.89 for me, dang it! :drown:

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 01:59 PM
Women going out in public without a scarf is NOT against Afghan law... it is against traditional MUSLIM law.

Abortion is NOT the responsible thing to do... birth control is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. It is ignorant to confuse the two. I do not ever expect to educate the mind of someone like you... I just feel sorry for your ignorance.

The Taliban is effectively the government in the Waziristan region.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 02:04 PM
The Taliban is effectively the government in the Waziristan region.

Again, you confuse terrorists with government... not the same. Although I will give you that Karzi and the Afghan government is undoubtedly the most corrupt government in existance today.

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 02:17 PM
Again, you confuse terrorists with government... not the same. Although I will give you that Karzi and the Afghan government is undoubtedly the most corrupt government in existance today.

Nah, there are some others that would give Karzai a run for his money. You do know there is a difference between recognized government and effective government, don't you? Just because the US recognizes Karzai doesn't mean that he is the effective leader of the nation.

One of the definitions the UN uses to define government is the structure that has the ability to influence law among the people. Another is the medium that provides basic services (roads, currency).

The Taliban has more influence in this than Karzai's people. Not wearing a head scarf is against most interpretations of Sharia Law. Karzai couldn't change that if he wanted to.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 02:34 PM
There you go... I have no respect for the UN, so I do not acknowlege their ideology... but thank you for clearing that up.

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 02:35 PM
Oy vey, it's not an ideology.

I'm done.

Tombstone RJ
03-09-2011, 04:39 PM
Nah, there are some others that would give Karzai a run for his money. You do know there is a difference between recognized government and effective government, don't you? Just because the US recognizes Karzai doesn't mean that he is the effective leader of the nation.

One of the definitions the UN uses to define government is the structure that has the ability to influence law among the people. Another is the medium that provides basic services (roads, currency).

The Taliban has more influence in this than Karzai's people. Not wearing a head scarf is against most interpretations of Sharia Law. Karzai couldn't change that if he wanted to.

The UN is a joke dude. I wouldn't put any credence in anything the UN says.

Meck77
03-09-2011, 05:06 PM
Day of Rage being planned in Saudi Arabia. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629104576190500046017940.html

Who knows how many people will participate but it seems to be a growing movement. Even if someone farts over there it will probably send oil prices higher.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 05:25 PM
Open ANWR now!!!

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 06:05 PM
This whole Arabic awakening is awesome for human rights... it's not going to be good for gas prices though. I for one, will take the trade off.

I actually look forward to the day when the the bubble explodes and the artificially low prices of petrol are exposed. THEN we'll get serious about sustainable development

Meck77
03-09-2011, 06:14 PM
I actually look forward to the day when the the bubble explodes and the artificially low prices of petrol are exposed. THEN we'll get serious about sustainable development

There was an opportunity in 08 when fuel prices went thru the roof http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M and GM was failing. What did we do? The american people were told we had to bail out GM or our economy would implode. Obama and GM promised a NEW GM. A green GM.

This is what the American tax payer got. http://www.gm.com/vehicles/results.jsp?fuel=HYBRID

$80,000 hybrid cadillacs that get 20mph. If you don't like that you can get a $50,000 version.

Fast forward to 2011. Oil is up well over $100 barrel. The dollar DXY is in the gutter. Take a look at the 10 year chart of the US dollar if you aren't following me. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY/charts?countryCode=US&submitted=true&intflavor=advanced&origurl=%2Ftools%2Fquotes%2Fintchart.asp&time=13&freq=1&comp=Enter%20Symbol(s)%3A&compidx=aaaaa~0&compind=aaaaa~0&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=1&optstyle=1013 This means severe pain at the pump because EVERYTHING you purchase is more expensive (not just gas).

baja
03-09-2011, 06:23 PM
There was an opportunity in 08 when fuel prices went thru the roof and GM was failing. What did we do? The american people were told we had to bail out GM or our economy would implode. Obama and GM promised a NEW GM. A green GM.

This is what the American tax payer got. http://www.gm.com/vehicles/results.jsp?fuel=HYBRID

$80,000 hybrid cadillacs that get 20mph. If you don't like that you can get a $50,000 version.

Fast forward to 2011. Oil is up well over $100 barrel. The dollar DXY is in the gutter. Take a look at the 10 year chart of the US dollar if you aren't following me. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY/charts?countryCode=US&submitted=true&intflavor=advanced&origurl=%2Ftools%2Fquotes%2Fintchart.asp&time=13&freq=1&comp=Enter%20Symbol(s)%3A&compidx=aaaaa~0&compind=aaaaa~0&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=1&optstyle=1013 This means severe pain at the pump because EVERYTHING you purchase is more expensive (not just gas).

I remember explaining the bleak future of the dollar a few years ago and what did you tell me then?

baja
03-09-2011, 06:25 PM
BTW Gold is about 1,500 an ounce remember the ridicule you heaped on me about that prediction of mine a few years ago?

~Crash~
03-09-2011, 06:26 PM
UNDAY, MAY 4, 2008
BOSNIA SELLS THE MOST EXPENSIVE GASOLINE IN THE WORLD

SARAJEVO, Bosnia (May 4,2008) - Out of 155 countries surveyed, the most expensive place in the world to fill up your tank is Bosnia at $10.86 a gallon, according to a recent study from AIRINC, an international research firm that tracks cost of living data.A gallon is a measure of volume. It is in current use in the United States and still has limited use in many other English-speaking countries.U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, and is equal to 3,785411784 litres (exactly) or about 0.13368 cubic feet.

Most expensive places in the world to buy gas:

1. Bosnia $10.86
2. Eritrea $9.58
3. Norway $8.73
4. United Kingdom $8.38
5. Netherlands $8.37
6. Monaco $8.31
7. Iceland $8.28
8. Belgium $8.22
9. France $8.07
10. Germany $7.86
111. United States $3.45

As of late March, U.S. gas prices averaged $3.45 a gallon. That compares to over $8 a gallon across much of Europe.

Price comparisons are not all created equal. Comparing gas prices across nations is always difficult. For starters, the AIRINC numbers don't take into account different salaries in different countries, or the different exchange rates. The dollar has lost considerable ground to the euro recently. Because oil is priced in dollars, rising oil prices aren't as hard on people paying with currencies which are stronger than the dollar, as they can essentially buy more oil with their money as the dollar falls in value.

And then there's the varying distances people drive, the public transportation options available, and the different services people get in exchange for high gas prices. For example, Europe's stronger social safety net, including cheaper health care and higher education, is paid for partly through gas taxes.

Gas price: It's all about government policy. Gasoline costs roughly the same to make no matter where in the world it's produced, according to John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute. The difference in retail costs, he said, is that some governments subsidize gas while others tax it heavily.

In many oil producing nations gas is absurdly cheap. In Venezuela it's 12 cents a gallon. In Saudi Arabia it's 45.

The governments there forego the money from selling that oil on the open market - instead using the money to make their people happy and encourage their nations' development.

Subsidies, many analysts say, are encouraging rampant demand in these countries, pushing up the price of oil worldwide.
.

Only a Democrat would wright that ****.

~Crash~
03-09-2011, 06:31 PM
Open ANWR now!!!

Good luck with that the democrats would tell you we got cheap gas .

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 06:37 PM
Good luck with that the democrats would tell you we got cheap gas .

I doubt we'll see the feds open ANWR in my lifetime. :(

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 08:59 PM
I doubt we'll see the feds open ANWR in my lifetime. :(

Sure we could... it would only push the problem further down the road, and the drop in gas prices would be minute.

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 09:00 PM
Only a Democrat would wright that ****.

I drove from Maastricht to Munich. It cost like 80 euro to fill up the tank.

Mogulseeker
03-09-2011, 09:02 PM
There was an opportunity in 08 when fuel prices went thru the roof http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M and GM was failing. What did we do? The american people were told we had to bail out GM or our economy would implode. Obama and GM promised a NEW GM. A green GM.

This is what the American tax payer got. http://www.gm.com/vehicles/results.jsp?fuel=HYBRID

$80,000 hybrid cadillacs that get 20mph. If you don't like that you can get a $50,000 version.

Fast forward to 2011. Oil is up well over $100 barrel. The dollar DXY is in the gutter. Take a look at the 10 year chart of the US dollar if you aren't following me. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY/charts?countryCode=US&submitted=true&intflavor=advanced&origurl=%2Ftools%2Fquotes%2Fintchart.asp&time=13&freq=1&comp=Enter%20Symbol(s)%3A&compidx=aaaaa~0&compind=aaaaa~0&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=1&optstyle=1013 This means severe pain at the pump because EVERYTHING you purchase is more expensive (not just gas).

What really complicates things is that domestic jobs are tied into production.

Ugly Duck
03-09-2011, 11:03 PM
Just paid $4.20 here in the North Bay, CA

Ugly Duck
03-09-2011, 11:11 PM
Open ANWR now!!!

Why? These prices are not driven by supply & demand... this is Wall Street speculation. The US only gets a 12% royalty from the international oil corporations when they drill on federal lands. And Bush allowed them to start paying us in "royalties in kind" in the form of oil that goes in to the strategic reserve. ANWR oil would just go on to the international market, which already has plenty of oil. Drivers would see zero effect by allowing drilling in ANWR.

AK Broncomaniac
03-09-2011, 11:23 PM
Why? These prices are not driven by supply & demand... this is Wall Street speculation. The US only gets a 12% royalty from the international oil corporations when they drill on federal lands. And Bush allowed them to start paying us in "royalties in kind" in the form of oil that goes in to the strategic reserve. ANWR oil would just go on to the international market, which already has plenty of oil. Drivers would see zero effect by allowing drilling in ANWR.

If for no other reason, Alaska is an oil driven economy. We need the money from the oil industry jobs to pay for that expensive gasoline. :)

chadta
03-10-2011, 04:03 AM
Why? These prices are not driven by supply & demand... this is Wall Street speculation. The US only gets a 12% royalty from the international oil corporations when they drill on federal lands. And Bush allowed them to start paying us in "royalties in kind" in the form of oil that goes in to the strategic reserve. ANWR oil would just go on to the international market, which already has plenty of oil. Drivers would see zero effect by allowing drilling in ANWR.

All it would take is a threat of letting oil out of the strategic reserves to bring prices down, and if that don't work, then do it, dump the full 4.4 million barrels per day physical maximum onto the market, watch the price crash, if you can find somewhere to refine it.

A better solution would be to simply make everybody actually take delivery of the oil contracts they are holding, and impose stiff fines for not having a place to put it.

Gort
03-10-2011, 08:50 AM
The funny thing about the American abortion known as "California" is that California doesn't even keep track of how many abortions are performed in the state. Cali loves to hide its vast killing fields.

It's not about taking away a woman's right to choose. It's about abortion becoming a form of birth control. Men and women are to blame for their gross incompetence in allowing this to happen. I don't think abortion should be the first option for women, I think it should be the LAST OPTION.

What upsets me is that there are schools in the abomination known as "California" where a 16 year old girl can go to a school counselor, tell said counselor that she is pregnant and the counselor sends her off to an abortion clinic to get the proceedure done WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. That's just wrong.

Yet in this same school, this same child needs a permission slip from the parents to receive an Aspirin or an Advil.

Don't you see the extreme hypocrisy of this kind of isane liberal system that Californial protects and promotes.

It's insane.

California-style insanity has spread to Colorado. here's just one example,

in Colorado, there are 12,000 people who got driver's licenses as legal aliens (i.e., legally here, but not citizens) who were also on the voter rolls during the last election. all they have to do is register (at the DMV thanks to Bill Clinton's Motor Voter Act), sign an affirmation that they are a US citizen, and show up at the polls on election day with a copy of a utility bill. they will be allowed to vote and their votes will count as much as any legitimate US citizen's vote. that same person could then drive from the polling place to their local library and attempt to "borrow" a book using that same utility bill. the librarian will tell that person that a utility bill is not sufficient proof of identification for "borrowing" a library book. their request to "borrow" will be denied.

there is 1 political party in America that thinks that makes perfect sense and that no changes need to be made to the voter registration and election processes. wanna guess which party that is? here's a hint. their logo includes the silhouette of a jackass.

one other thing... the state of Colorado does not have funds to investigate and pursue criminal charges against 12,000 illegally registered voters. there is literally no repercussions to be faced by these 12,000 people.

Gort
03-10-2011, 09:02 AM
Why? These prices are not driven by supply & demand... this is Wall Street speculation. The US only gets a 12% royalty from the international oil corporations when they drill on federal lands. And Bush allowed them to start paying us in "royalties in kind" in the form of oil that goes in to the strategic reserve. ANWR oil would just go on to the international market, which already has plenty of oil. Drivers would see zero effect by allowing drilling in ANWR.

it's not as simple as saying "Wall Street speculation".

OPEC is a cartel. they do not behave according to free market rules.

the only way to fight OPEC is to minimize the amount of oil you buy from them. one way would be to explore, drill, and exploit our own reserves.

the current administration is refusing all attempts to do so, while at the same time not saying a word while neighboring countries tap into those same reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.

on top of that, this adminstration steered more than a billion dollars from their fraudulent stimulus package to a Brazilian company to help that Brazilian company find and exploit their own oil reserves. why did they do this? because Obama's good buddy George Soros has heavily invested in that same Brazilian company.

clearly Obama doesn't have a problem with the world using oil. he just doesn't want US companies drilling for the oil and he doesn't want US consumers benefiting from low oil prices.

also Wall Street donated much more to Obama than to McCain.

any way you look at it, this rise in gas prices has Obama fingerprints all over it.

Tombstone RJ
03-10-2011, 04:13 PM
it's not as simple as saying "Wall Street speculation".

OPEC is a cartel. they do not behave according to free market rules.

the only way to fight OPEC is to minimize the amount of oil you buy from them. one way would be to explore, drill, and exploit our own reserves.

the current administration is refusing all attempts to do so, while at the same time not saying a word while neighboring countries tap into those same reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.

on top of that, this adminstration steered more than a billion dollars from their fraudulent stimulus package to a Brazilian company to help that Brazilian company find and exploit their own oil reserves. why did they do this? because Obama's good buddy George Soros has heavily invested in that same Brazilian company.

clearly Obama doesn't have a problem with the world using oil. he just doesn't want US companies drilling for the oil and he doesn't want US consumers benefiting from low oil prices.

also Wall Street donated much more to Obama than to McCain.

any way you look at it, this rise in gas prices has Obama fingerprints all over it.

sad but true

Mogulseeker
03-10-2011, 06:48 PM
Oh brother. Obama was going to win. Wall Street was hedging their bets. That's how they roll.

Mogulseeker
03-10-2011, 06:54 PM
The other day my global governance professor asked the class, "Who wants to see gas at 16 dollars a gallon?"

I, and maybe four other raised our hands.

It's the only way the US is going to get serious about long-term economic development.

Look, I'm a complete moderate, and for the most part a neoclassical economist. There are some issues that just bug me and this is one of them. When I lived in Europe, I was always within walking distance of a train station that could take me to just about anywhere else in Europe, without the use of a car, within a day, for about thirty dollars (with an EUrail pass). Most families own one car (or no cars) and they're used for road trips and occasionally getting around in the city. It's just a better way of doing things.

broncocalijohn
03-10-2011, 08:10 PM
The other day my global governance professor asked the class, "Who wants to see gas at 16 dollars a gallon?"

I, and maybe four other raised our hands.

It's the only way the US is going to get serious about long-term economic development.

Look, I'm a complete moderate, and for the most part a neoclassical economist. There are some issues that just bug me and this is one of them. When I lived in Europe, I was always within walking distance of a train station that could take me to just about anywhere else in Europe, without the use of a car, within a day, for about thirty dollars (with an EUrail pass). Most families own one car (or no cars) and they're used for road trips and occasionally getting around in the city. It's just a better way of doing things.

THis is probably one of the stupidest, eco warrior type of response. "Just make it so it is too expensive to have people drive!" You realize we are not the size like Europe. It is too expensive to build this "bullet train" from OC/LA area to SF/Sacramento. Too much land in between. Unless you are in NY or Boston area (and few others), this doesnt work and wont. We are completely different here. Your attitude is not only disgusting but detrimental to our economy. Food prices have shot up in the last few years with most other products, services, etc. because of gas prices.

baja
03-10-2011, 08:12 PM
THis is probably one of the stupidest, eco warrior type of response. "Just make it so it is too expensive to have people drive!" You realize we are not the size like Europe. It is too expensive to build this "bullet train" from OC/LA area to SF/Sacramento. Too much land in between. Unless you are in NY or Boston area (and few others), this doesnt work and wont. We are completely different here. Your attitude is not only disgusting but detrimental to our economy. Food prices have shot up in the last few years with most other products, services, etc. because of gas prices.

Don't be a dope plant a garden.

broncocalijohn
03-10-2011, 08:15 PM
Don't be a dope plant a garden.

Trust me, I have. My backyard doesnt cooperate very well. I love the idea of individuals using better gas efficient cars, growing organic food, walking, running and all other healthy activities to get people off the road (just dont cross the street when I need to turn!). We have a lifestyle here that doesnt equate to Europe and putting a bullet train from LA to Vegas has very few stops in between and it is cheaper to fly or hang in traffic and drive. There is a city here in SoCal, Hawthorne, that listened to some schmuck that hates cars and they implemented parking fees in their downtown. It worked! Less cars and less business for those merchants. Great move Hawthorne!

Tombstone RJ
03-10-2011, 09:59 PM
The other day my global governance professor asked the class, "Who wants to see gas at 16 dollars a gallon?"

I, and maybe four other raised our hands.

It's the only way the US is going to get serious about long-term economic development.

Look, I'm a complete moderate, and for the most part a neoclassical economist. There are some issues that just bug me and this is one of them. When I lived in Europe, I was always within walking distance of a train station that could take me to just about anywhere else in Europe, without the use of a car, within a day, for about thirty dollars (with an EUrail pass). Most families own one car (or no cars) and they're used for road trips and occasionally getting around in the city. It's just a better way of doing things.

The reason the car exploded in the US is because of the highway system. The reason the highway system developed in the US is because it's a big country and towns were spread out all over the place. Building trains tracks everywhere didn't make sense.

Europe is different, dude.

Canada and Russia aren't exactly models of light rail transit every where either. Dude, there has to be a bridge to newer cleaner and easily produced forms of energy. You can't jack up the price of a gallon gas to $16 bucks without killing the middle class and especially the lower middle class.

I'm all for 'WEENING' ourselves off fossil fuels, but it has to be done right. Unfortunately Washington DC is full of a bunch of hypocrits, liars, cheaters and elitists who don't do a friggen thing until there is a complete catastrophe, and then the American PEOPLE pull the inept leadership out of the gutter and get things turn around.

Do you honestly think that if Washington DC was worth a hoot in hell, we'd even be having this discussion?? If the fuggen fed gov had their crap together they'd be growing new energy via the free market instead of kissing the Saudi's azzz. They'd allow things like Nuclear Energy to be the main source of electricity, transition the auto industry to electric cars, while at the same time developing new energy sources like hydrogen.

That's what a compitent government would be doing. Instead, we got the idiots in DC who are paid off by lobbyist and foreign governments.

i need a drink...

chadta
03-11-2011, 04:49 AM
There is a city here in SoCal, Hawthorne, that listened to some schmuck that hates cars and they implemented parking fees in their downtown. It worked! Less cars and less business for those merchants. Great move Hawthorne!

Sounds like Toronto, between dedicated bike lanes in the middle of main streets, in a city where people really only bike 3 months out of the year, and street car lanes taking up one of the 2 lanes on a street. The plan of making it as hard as possible for people with cars to get around is working, People just up and move, businesses up and move.

Here in Hamilton we are equally as retarded, we want more parking downtown, so we have taken a 4 lane wide one way street and added islands on the side 2 lanes to create 2 permanent parking lanes, so now you have lots of places to stop, except that now traffic doesn't move on the street. Thats much better than the old way where parking was allowed but not during rush hour, those concrete islands dont move at rush hour.

Gort
03-11-2011, 10:28 AM
i have a couple of favorite anecdotes about my time living in California that i like to tell people who haven't had the misfortune of living there. my favorite has to be this one. this happened in the early-to-mid 90's as i recall and it perfectly explains the lack of logic or self-awareness of liberals (actually, in this case, hippies).

Santa Cruz has always drawn homeless people. they had (still have?) large encampments of homeless people living/camping in the woods surrounding the city and up into the Santa Cruz mountains. now keep in mind, "homeless" in California is generally a misnomer. these people aren't so much defined by their homelessness as they are by the fact that they are either 1) drug addicts, or 2) certifiably insane. lots of crazy people are set loose because hospitals don't have the funds to give them longterm care. the taxpayers got sick of paying to institutionalize crazy people, so the state of California's solution was to turn them out on the streets. also, homeless people from all over the country migrate to California because of the nicer weather. so California has a serious problem with homeless people, most of which or criminals or crazy, and usually also very disagreeable people (mean, violent, etc.).

so back to my anecdote. back in the mid-90's, Santa Cruz shopkeepers were getting sick and tired of coming to work in the morning and finding homeless people sleeping on the door stoops to their businesses, pissing all over the sidewalks, and hanging around out front being disruptive to their customers. it got to be such a problem for them, that even though most were probably very liberal politically, even they realized that common sense needed to trump their need to show their solidarity with the homeless. these businesses started to talk to each other and get organized to apply some pressure on the city council to pass some ordinances to keep the homeless away from businesses during the day so that they wouldn't harass their customers (many of whom were daytrippers from the rest of the SF Bay area).

so how did the city council respond? well, as you'd expect. not only were they NOT willing to help the shopkeepers, they went so far as to start accusing the shopkeepers of being intolerant toward the homeless. in fact, they got together and held a vote (which passed) saying that the city of Santa Cruz was tolerant to all. and in fact, Santa Cruz would not tolerate anybody who was intolerant.

think about that for a minute. the Santa Cruz city council passed a resolution condemning their own shopkeepers for being intolerant, and that the city of Santa Cruz would henceforth be intolerant of anybody they deemed to be intolerant.

:D

i've got other anecdotes, including a funny one where some athletes (football or baseball players as i recall) from Stanford were reprimanded by the school for committing a hate crime against a statue. i don't know how you can commit a hate crime against a chunk of rock, but apparently, at Stanford, you can. however, i think the one about Santa Cruz pretty well sums up the illogic of that part of California.

chadta
03-11-2011, 12:38 PM
All it would take is a threat of letting oil out of the strategic reserves to bring prices down, and if that don't work, then do it, dump the full 4.4 million barrels per day physical maximum onto the market, watch the price crash, if you can find somewhere to refine it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-11/obama-says-u-s-prepared-to-tap-strategic-petroleum-reserve-if-necessary.html

President Barack Obama said he’s prepared to tap the nation’s strategic oil reserve if necessary to deal with any disruptions in the energy supply and said the Justice Department will be on the watch for any evidence of price gouging.

lets see if im right, god i hope i am LOL except that he said to deal with supply, and as weve seen supply isnt a problem, reserves have still gone up despite the shut down of libya.

cutthemdown
03-11-2011, 12:52 PM
The other day my global governance professor asked the class, "Who wants to see gas at 16 dollars a gallon?"

I, and maybe four other raised our hands.

It's the only way the US is going to get serious about long-term economic development.

Look, I'm a complete moderate, and for the most part a neoclassical economist. There are some issues that just bug me and this is one of them. When I lived in Europe, I was always within walking distance of a train station that could take me to just about anywhere else in Europe, without the use of a car, within a day, for about thirty dollars (with an EUrail pass). Most families own one car (or no cars) and they're used for road trips and occasionally getting around in the city. It's just a better way of doing things.

Except we are more spread out and what works in Europe may not work here. We have so much more space to cover.

Tombstone RJ
03-11-2011, 04:44 PM
Another thing about California--they regulate everything! I mean, it's crazy how much the state regulates the economy, the people, the businesses, etc...

But keeping track of abortions--no way!

I mean WTF??

AK Broncomaniac
03-14-2011, 09:07 PM
Yikes!!! I just paid $4.10/gal today! :(

Broncochica
03-14-2011, 09:11 PM
Yikes!!! I just paid $4.10/gal today! :(

I feel your pain, I'm so glad I finally traded in my suv for a smaller car. :)

chadta
03-15-2011, 02:04 PM
gas dropped like 16 cents a gallon today, its actually going down 4.1 cents per liter at midnight up here, i would think you guys should wait if you can to get gas as i suspect you should see a good chunk of that 16 cent drop.

OBF1
03-15-2011, 02:29 PM
The words GAS PRICE and- falling, dropping, lowering, cheaper, less $ just do not go hand in hand in SoCal :)

Broncochica
03-15-2011, 03:10 PM
gas dropped like 16 cents a gallon today, its actually going down 4.1 cents per liter at midnight up here, i would think you guys should wait if you can to get gas as i suspect you should see a good chunk of that 16 cent drop.

I sure hope it comes around this way in Cali! :approve:

AK Broncomaniac
03-16-2011, 12:57 AM
The words GAS PRICE and- falling, dropping, lowering, cheaper, less $ just do not go hand in hand in SoCal :)

Not in Alaska either! :(

BroncoBuff
03-16-2011, 03:10 AM
any way you look at it, this rise in gas prices has Obama fingerprints all over it.

And the far FAR greater rise in gas prices in 2006 had Bush's fingerprints all over it.

And the foolish war in Iraq, based on fraudulent reasons, had Bush, Cheney and Big Oil's fingerprints all over it. According to Alan Greenspan anyway.

I'll take Obama. You should too.

Gort
03-16-2011, 09:36 AM
And the far FAR greater rise in gas prices in 2006 had Bush's fingerprints all over it.

And the foolish war in Iraq, based on fraudulent reasons, had Bush, Cheney and Big Oil's fingerprints all over it. According to Alan Greenspan anyway.

I'll take Obama. You should too.

Obama is an incompetent boob. the people who voted for him voted for an empty vessel into which they poured their hopes and dreams. after 2 years, most of the country sees him for what he is... a shallow, narcissist without any leadership abilities and without any particular affection for this country.

while Japan is supposedly facing nuclear catastrophe (according to the mainstream media), Obama can only find time to tape his NCAA bracket predictions for ESPN. he's callow. he's out of touch. he needs to be removed from office.

you can have Obama. you two are peas in a pod together. i'll take a REAL president like Ronald Reagan.

my president vs. your president. this picture summarizes things perfectly.

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Reagan-Obama.jpg

PS... in case you don't realize, we conservatives were VERY disappointed in Bush. he acquiesced to the demands of the liberals in Washington D.C. too many times. i'm not a fan.

chadta
03-17-2011, 05:08 PM
Remember that 15 cents off from the other day, well its up a dime of that today, and the other 4 cents as of right this second, so if prices didnt go down, they wont, if they did they will go back up.

Mogulseeker
03-19-2011, 04:41 PM
I thought this was extremely interesting.

Dr. Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, basically argues that increases in abortion led to greater quality of life, a better economy, and lower crime. And unlike most of the people in the thread, he uses statistical data to defend his hypothesis.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zCH_OewK_KI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

baja
03-19-2011, 04:54 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Eugenics_congress_logo.png




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Mogulseeker
03-19-2011, 05:10 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Eugenics_congress_logo.png




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I know about Eugenics, and it has been mostly disproven from a biological standpoint.

The economic outcome of abortion has nothing to do with biology. Look more into Economics and Sociology.

baja
03-19-2011, 05:22 PM
You don't see a relationship in the principals of the two?

Mogulseeker
03-19-2011, 05:42 PM
You don't see a relationship in the principals of the two?

You mean biological purification on one hand and economic consequence of socioeconomic patterns on the other?

Apples and oranges.