Half of why gas prices are so high.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/09/chavez.invasion.ap/index.html

[Back]

Curious how you come to that conclusion when there was absolutely nothing about it in the article at all.

[CrystalTears]

I was wondering the same thing and then came across the last tiny paragraph.


Chavez, whose country remains a major supplier of oil to the United States, also is sharply critical of the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Originally posted by Backlash
Curious how you come to that conclusion when there was absolutely nothing about it in the article at all.

There was one line at the end where it mentioned that we get a lot of our oil from his country.

It's a bit of a stretch.

[DeV]

The Venezuelan leader said "socialism is the only path," and told the students the collective goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism."
Bold statement.

This guy talks more shit than Osama Bin Laden. I guess when you're supplying as much oil to America as they are you can make statements to that effect.

[Gan]

I wonder if WB is wearing a red shirt today...

[The Ponzzz]

It was clearly stated by the CEO of Mobil/exxon gas corp that the reason for increasing the prices of gas was simple. Supply and Demand. The product is in demand, and always will be, so the price will continue to increase.

Until the year 2000, the idea was never thought of. But when the war started, the prices increased. They used this as if it was the reason, when in fact there is no lower amounts of gas, and it is just as easy to get as it was when it was .89 cents less than 10 years ago.

The only way for gas to drop back down to what it was, is we need to go on a strike. But people won't ride bikes and walk, or even use the bus system.

So sit back, relax, and get ready to spend 3 bucks a gallon by the end of summer(premium/super gas)...

[GSLady17]

Gas prices are cheap compared to some countries.

[Back]

With gas prices as high as they are and with as much oil as there is coming from overseas it makes you wonder how people want to point at this new energy bill as anything but a device to pump American oil profits to record highs.

Bush ran on a campaign promise of reducing our dependency on foriegn oil. But just like WMDs thats obviously just another story.

[Gan]

Originally posted by The Ponzzz
So sit back, relax, and get ready to spend 3 bucks a gallon by the end of summer(premium/super gas)...

Why buy premium gas? Some (most) [all] mass produced domestic and foreign gasoline engines for passenger vehicles are designed to run on a minimum octane rating of 87 here in the US. Save that extra money for a pack of cigarettes or a big mac or something else worthwhile :rolleyes:

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Bush ran on a campaign promise of reducing our dependency on foriegn oil. But just like WMDs thats obviously just another story.

That concept is like promising to reduce the dependancy of crack on an addicted family member. Its not going to happen as long as the US population has the freedom to choose the levels of their oil consumption. Unless you're recommending that he step on the liberty of every American and outlaw all vehicles that can not achieve over 20 mpg in consumption... or restrict air travel to cut back on aviation fuel consumption... or restrain any other form of commercial oil consumption that would have even greater effects of harm on the economy.

Instead of just harping about the perceived issue you have with the current administration's efforts on energy, lets hear a solution from your camp on how reduction in dependancy can be done on a mass scale - commercially.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
Bush ran on a campaign promise of reducing our dependency on foriegn oil. But just like WMDs thats obviously just another story.

That concept is like promising to reduce the dependancy of crack on an addicted family member. Its not going to happen as long as the US population has the freedom to choose the levels of their oil consumption. Unless you're recommending that he step on the liberty of every American and outlaw all vehicles that can not achieve over 20 mpg in consumption... or restrict air travel to cut back on aviation fuel consumption... or restrain any other form of commercial oil consumption that would have even greater effects of harm on the economy.

Instead of just harping about the perceived issue you have with the current administration's efforts on energy, lets hear a solution from your camp on how reduction in dependancy can be done on a mass scale - commercially.

Then why did he say it? Am I wrong? Did he not claim that was one of his goals?

My camp is not represented in Congress and if it is, its a brave tiny bloc of represenatives who aren’t bought by the private sector.

If the good of our courty means telling Americans they need to cut back on something, then by all means... there was plenty of that in WWII.

[The Ponzzz]

Oh, I don't, but that's what I look at when I drive by a gas station.

I been walking and biking it to work nowadays. My SUV was running me into the ground at $100 a week for gas(2 full tanks). Though my legs are still killing me from the bike ride at 8 this morning(6 mile ride to work, and it seems uphill both ways).

But yea, other countries pay more, but WE ARN'T OTHER COUNTRIES. You can also make more money in most other Countries(doing what I do)...

[El Burro]

Originally posted by GSLady17
Gas prices are cheap compared to some countries.

Other countries also have highly subsidised mass transit systems which the US doesn't. Instead of the massive mass transit systems they have we instead demand cheap fuel... which we don't have.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
That concept is like promising to reduce the dependancy of crack on an addicted family member. Its not going to happen as long as the US population has the freedom to choose the levels of their oil consumption. Unless you're recommending that he step on the liberty of every American and outlaw all vehicles that can not achieve over 20 mpg in consumption... or restrict air travel to cut back on aviation fuel consumption... or restrain any other form of commercial oil consumption that would have even greater effects of harm on the economy.

Instead of just harping about the perceived issue you have with the current administration's efforts on energy, lets hear a solution from your camp on how reduction in dependancy can be done on a mass scale - commercially. Oh come on Ganalon. It was from the horses own mouth so to speak. Though, Bush is not the first president to acknowledge the importance of energy independence but fail to take necessary but very unpopular steps to solve it. Five others before him are in the same boat...

In his own words, "And to build on this success and to keep this economy growing, we need an affordable, reliable supply of energy -- and that starts with pursuing policies to make prices reasonable at the pump. Today, millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline prices. If you're trying to meet a payroll, or trying to meet a family budget, even small increases at the pump have a big impact on your bottom line. For the sake of American families and American workers, this country must take action now to deal with the causes of rising gasoline prices.

The primary cause of rising gasoline prices is that the global demand for oil is growing faster than global supply.

Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American Dream -- and that tax is growing every year. My administration is doing all we can to help ease the problem. We're encouraging oil-producing countries to maximize their production, so more crude oil is on the market to meet the demands of the world. And we're going to make sure that consumers here at home are treated fairly -- there's not going to be any price-gouging here in America."

Bush similarly declared, "The fundamental problem is this: Our supply of energy is not growing fast enough to meet the demands of our growing economy…A growing economy causes us to consume more energy. And, yet, we're not producing energy here at home, which means we’re reliant upon foreign nations."

As New York Time columnist Tom Friedman said: “By doing nothing to lower U.S. oil consumption, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism and strengthening the worst governments in the world. That is, we are financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars and we are financing the jihadists—and the Saudi, Sudanese and Iranian mosques and charities that support them—through our gasoline purchases.”
How many more presidents (of any party) will talk the talk on energy policy, but fail to take action?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Then why did he say it? Am I wrong? Did he not claim that was one of his goals?

Promises and goals can be interpreted differently. Which is it that you interpreted from Bush? A promise or a goal? Read through the Department of Energy website and you can see the efforts of this administration on Energy consumption, efficiency, and monitoring of the dependancy and pricing.

http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do


Originally posted by Backlash
My camp is not represented in Congress and if it is, its a brave tiny bloc of represenatives who aren’t bought by the private sector.

All politicians are bought, thinking that they arent is like believing in the easter bunny.


Originally posted by Backlash
If the good of our courty [country] means telling Americans they need to cut back on something, then by all means... there was plenty of that in WWII.

So you're supporting limiting the freedoms of Americans to choose how and what they can consume. How does that differ from your earlier threads/rants/posts regarding the 'facist' administration and how they are taking away our civil liberties? You support flag burning but not gas burning. Riiiight.

[GSLady17]

Originally posted by The Ponzzz
The only way for gas to drop back down to what it was, is we need to go on a strike. But people won't ride bikes and walk, or even use the bus system.



I agree with this.

I think that if people want to complain, they should do something about it. If they aren’t willing to, then it is their own fault. You can’t expect to sit back and cry about it and expect it to magically change.

We also drive more than other countries. I think it is just a case of being lazy for <<<most>>> Americans. They demand to drive everywhere which raises the demand of gas which raises the price.

[CrystalTears]

What the country needs is alternate energy fuels. The less we need to depend on oil the better off we'll be.

Doc from Back to the Future needs to help design the garbage fuel car cause that ruled.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Promises and goals can be interpreted differently. Which is it that you interpreted from Bush? A promise or a goal? Read through the Department of Energy website and you can see the efforts of this administration on Energy consumption, efficiency, and monitoring of the dependancy and pricing.

You are so full of it you are the only person on this board who can make me quote you like this because I refuse to let this kind of crap go. Promise or goal? Hey man, I’m repeating what HE said. I’m not making it up. Promise or goal it was bold-faced bullshit. There is no way you can say otherwise until he makes a move to get the forgien oil monkey off our backs.


Originally posted by GanalonAll politicians are bought, thinking that they arent is like believing in the easter bunny.

False. Most, not all. If everyone were to subscribe to your view we’d certainly be fucked because in your world corruption is the established way of doing things. Try to be a little more positive.


Originally posted by GanalonSo you're supporting limiting the freedoms of Americans to choose how and what they can consume. How does that differ from your earlier threads/rants/posts regarding the 'facist' administration and how they are taking away our civil liberties? You support flag burning but not gas burning. Riiiight.

I’ve never advocated flag burning. I’ve never argued much against the decline of civil liberties. You are making shit up again. My reasons for using the Fascist label stem from what the word actually means.

When the nation is in need its people need to work together to make it strong. You never responded to my example of WWII rationing or volunteering to support a nation’s cause. I don’t think burning up as much fuel as you want is a liberty. I’d seen it more as a privledge and stupid.

[Gan]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
What the country needs is alternate energy fuels. The less we need to depend on oil the better off we'll be.

Doc from Back to the Future needs to help design the garbage fuel car cause that ruled.

I totally agree. Perhaps legislation towards the American Automobile Manufacturers (since transportation equates to 65% of all oil consumption in the US) should be required to produce vehicles with the capability to burn alternatives like P-Fuels (http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/p-series.html) then give economic/tax incentives for the production and distribution of said fuel alternatives so they are competitive in price and availability to normal fuels. It would be interesting to see if a substitute good for gasoline could be viably supported by our market structure.

Who knows, perhaps the current gasoline engines (so we wont have to require everyone to buy a 'new' vehicle) can already burn P-fuels and all we need to do is just introduce them to the marketplace. From an economic perspective, as prices get higher, the motivation by other 'players' to enter the market with viable substitute goods will get higher and higher and if that were to ever happen then consumers will stand in line for a cheaper 'like' product. I know I will. Only thing we can hope for is that the substitute goods introduced are more environment friendly.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
You are so full of it you are the only person on this board who can make me quote you like this because I refuse to let this kind of crap go. Promise or goal? Hey man, I’m repeating what HE said. I’m not making it up. Promise or goal it was bold-faced bullshit. There is no way you can say otherwise until he makes a move to get the forgien oil monkey off our backs.

Glad I can motivate you as no other can. I'm giving myself a cookie for that. As far as campaign promises/goals go, I understand where you are coming from in that he's had all this time and a republican controlled congress to make something happen. The energy bill is part of that domestic effort. Unfortunately the measuring of those efforts equates to many of the past president's efforts in curbing consumption or creating alternative means rather than just increasing taxes. I also dont see him leveraging foreign oil monopolies to increase production or lowering prices unless we have a 'carrot' that they would be willing to trade for it. At this point we have no carrot. It truly is a sellers market.



Originally posted by Backlash
False. Most, not all. If everyone were to subscribe to your view we’d certainly be fucked because in your world corruption is the established way of doing things. Try to be a little more positive.

You're not being realistic. Until they impose term limits on themselves as a start and then go after lobbying interests I dont [wont] believe that the constituency is being sold out to big interest groups for personal/professional gain.


Originally posted by Backlash
I’ve never advocated flag burning. I’ve never argued much against the decline of civil liberties. You are making shit up again. My reasons for using the Fascist label stem from what the word actually means.

Facist means just that...
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascist



Originally posted by Backlash
When the nation is in need its people need to work together to make it strong. You never responded to my example of WWII rationing or volunteering to support a nation’s cause. I don’t think burning up as much fuel as you want is a liberty. I’d seen it more as a privledge and stupid.

I agree, us Americans need to be motivated in national interests as much as we are in personal interests. But human behavior dictates that we take care of the me before the we. The fact that taking care of the me also takes care of the we (to some extent) is why I identify with the Invisible Hand Theory.

Consumption is as much a civil liberty as any other persuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If you're going to apply a set of standards for freedom then you have to apply them to all aspects in my opinion. Your opinion of consumption as stupid is as the same as my opinion on flag burning. We agree at least on principal there.

As far as the WWII campaign of recycling and encouraging consumption - I thought it was magnificant and successful because the people were unified behind a single (well double actually) aggressor. There is no unity or single aggressor that the people are willing to unify behind at this point. Thus consumption is more relating to economic reasons instead of military. We have advertisement campaings on recycling, fuel efficiency, carpooling, and the like on the local and state level as well as on a national level. Very comparable to the 'suggestion' that was given to the American public back in the 40's.

[Skirmisher]

Hypocrisy is funny.

He hates the US.

Hates the capitalistic beast that is us.

He however love China.

Because they are "communist" and no capitalism is there at all.....riiiiight.

[Warriorbird]

I am conflicted about the situation. At this point, if the Republicans maintain their stranglehold on American politics, they'll need to knock over Venezuela after Iran. The situation could've probably been fixed with a bit of careful flattery and halfway decent diplomacy however, and Venezuela wouldn't have been contributing to us getting so vigourously shafted by OPEC.

I can just picture Chavez's rep sitting in the middle of a bunch of Arabs going on and on about the American oppressors and frothing at the mouth and the Arabs all being like, "Easy boy. It's okay. We'll raise prices again."

Mind you, with that said, as I said before, I think about half of our current ridiculously high oil prices is profiteering energy companies. This is pretty clearly evidenced by the sick/insane earnings my grandfather has gotten off of his energy stocks.

[Gridlock]

yeah you see how great china must be when there dieing by the hundreds pileing themselves in boats to come to america

[xtc]

Chavez is an interesting character and politics in South America takes a while to get your head around. He certainly is popular in his country.

When we stop buying SUV's and we start conserving energy things will get better. As a nation we need to reduce consumption. Bush failed to sign the Kyoto protocol. Consumption in India and China is on the rise which will increase price.

One thing I notice each time I visit Europe is how much more focused they are on conservation than we are.

We need energy more efficient appliances, we need more energy efficient homes and cars.

We need to subsidise mass transit.

Although I am as a rule not a fan of raising taxes it certainly worked in Europe to curb consumption.

We need alternative sources of energy, we should have been researching this 30 years ago.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Gridlock
yeah you see how great china must be when there dieing by the hundreds pileing themselves in boats to come to america Cuba automatically comes to mind... China(?)

[Latrinsorm]

Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."Spain? The Mongolians? England?

I also love the idea that the Venezuelans would be able to repulse an American invasion with 82,000 soldiers.

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc
Bush failed to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Gore was the first to refuse, Bush agreed as well. Your point? What does this have to do with the price of oil? Or are you just Bush bashing?

[Back]

Chavez is starting to sound like Kim Jong Il with all of these paranoid sounding claims of being invaded by the US.

The media here DO make Chavez out to be some kind of crazy evil guy but, as xtc mentioned, he is very popular with Venezualens and most South American nations. His paranoia may come from our open tendancy to say that anything that is not democratic is evil.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc
Bush failed to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Gore was the first to refuse, Bush agreed as well. Your point? What does this have to do with the price of oil? Or are you just Bush bashing? Did you miss the other 98% of his post?

How was that a bash against Bush, whom he voted for oddly enough, if I remember correctly? Sounds like nitpicking to me.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
Chavez is starting to sound like Kim Jong Il with all of these paranoid sounding claims of being invaded by the US.

The media here DO make Chavez out to be some kind of crazy evil guy but, as xtc mentioned, he is very popular with Venezualens and most South American nations. His paranoia may come from our open tendancy to say that anything that is not democratic is evil. He also thinks our government supported a failed coup against him back in 2002. We denied it but of course he doesn't believe it for a minute.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."Spain? The Mongolians? England?

I also love the idea that the Venezuelans would be able to repulse an American invasion with 82,000 soldiers.

Venezuela is just wanting its 15 minutes. I wonder what the other Arab leaders really think of Chavez.

If the US is all that evil, then why are we still seeing refugees flocking to the US for a 'better' life? Welcome to the world of spin and dis-information I suppose. By blaming the US then it diverts the attention normally given to the backwards countries from which these immigrants are coming from. Unless the motto is let America finaince your country's development, maintain its protection until you're strong enough to do it yourself, let it educate your leaders and fund your own educational infrastructure then when you finally get on your own two feet - AMERIKA IS THE DEVIL!!!

Its funny to watch all the small players and how they act when they actually get a seat at the 'big' table with enough chips to buy into the game. Question is how long will they be able to remain?

Reminds me of rebellious teenagers and the relationship with their parents...

The world has recognized America's achillies heel. Oil. And now they are exploiting it immensely. I cant wait to see a viable alternative appear that will close the door on this trend.

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

I doubt the Arabs like him at all. That doesn't change the fact that Venezuela has a hell of a lot of oil, however.