Gas Prices

?? little too warm in here??

DO NOT start the global warming debate

I would not listen to the French
But we have had a few problems with the French here

Kiwis don?t normally blame people for their government
We know better than that
We know that most if not all politicians are self centred morons
We know that politicians lie about almost everything

Yep we have the NEWS
Nope you can't believe everything it says

Pong I do remember playing that game
Is that all you have for entertainment
I would have thought you had more powerful computers than that by now
Try Pac-man you guys should be getting close to running that by now

The downside is more people will be employed but they may have trouble getting to work
Oh well at least they will have a job

I wonder what will happen in China?

I have to wonder
All that fuel used to move things that could have been made down the road

So there you have it
Out sourcing was created by low transport costs
So the price of fuel was to low for too long

And all of your personal attacks against individuals.

Shall I start reporting all your anti American rants as bigotry.

You better be careful Oz, you have a past history that is easy to find of doing the same if not worse.

You can't provide stats to back up your arguments.

You didn't answer my answers on the amount of time. Your's response was as you accused me, nothing but personal opinion. NOTHING ELSE. I provided figures to support mine.

Both number of years and cost.

Your argument as you are Oz. Is straight up Bull Sht.

Your anti American rants will be from this point froward flagged as bigotry.

Your personal attacks, just like you did against Tony will be flagged as spammed.

Fk you oz.

Dan

Your an idiot.

Read my first post..
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=267053&messageID=2529754
[i]Me, I want both. And both of those boobs want to heal america. Yea, if so. How about agreeing to do both. Cap the bloody speculators, open up drilling, and give incentives to invest in alternate energy.[/i]

I want development of alternate fuels. Nowhere did I state or otherwise insinuate that this country would be energy independent with oil.

Quit making things up Oz. Your not even good at it.

And Oz, your the only one talking about ANWR.

Did you fall off the topic somewhere Oz. Did you not realize that drilling has been suggested in many area's? Off shore drilling, ANWR? What about the Colorodo shale deposits. Just because it's not cost effective now, doesn't mean that technology can't make it so. By not opening them up, we will never know.

Isn't that what your country did Oz. Canada? Develop the technology when it was not cost effective? Now it is?

What you anti American. It's ok for your nation to do things and not others.

Your anti American.

Your a hypocrite for reporting me for spam and personal attack when you have a past history of doing the same.

You just left yourself open for the same type of reporting Oz. I can't wait till the next time you go on your little rants and call all Americans stupid. Or call people aholes because you don't agree.

The spam button and reporting procedures await what past history shows happens on a regular basis by you.

So Oz. Put up or shut up.

You provide nothing in your arguments but your opinion(that's what you accused me of, remember). You use a double standard when people attack your position when you are known by all to use the same type of attacks.

So Oz... Stay in Canada, stay being a bigot.

Stay the fk away from me.

Fkn bigot
Fkn hypocrite

Dan
[edited to add] You notice the only thing that Oz flagged as spam was where I provided figures? Go figure... When I provided numbers to back my position, he pu$$ed out and cried for mommy.

because no matter which I choose, I would be right.... :0

Relax, I thought it was apparently obvious that parts of it were a joke and parts of it were real.

You seem to take some of my comments just a tad too seriously man.

I have to take Techno Rat's side on this one.

Seems to me I've read an article in our Sunday newspaper dispelling all Oz's myths.

Unforunately, I can't find it on-line right now.

our friends at the ATF and FBI will be glad to know that ;) lol

[i]Go sit by the crick and blow into your jug some more, Zeek. Billy Bob and Dusty's Boys will be along with the washboard, spoons and banjo shortly. [/i]

I almost fell out of my chair laughing lol :D

[i]As this pertains to the subject, that means suing or taxing or fining a business is stupid, as all of the punishment is borne by the consumers, who are doing nothing except buying perfectly legal products or services in order to live their perfectly normal lives, and eventually, at least some of those consumers are going to react, in some cases fiercely, to what they see as blatant unfairness. Just be prepared is all I'm saying, because this is going to get dangerously close to many (more than you even have an inkling of) people's
definition of enough! [/i]

you don't want to tax a business?

how do you pay for police then? go down and write a check to them? and your firemen? or roads maintenance? or your kid's school?

taxing a business is sensible to maintain that "infrastructure" you mentioned.

Fining business for anything illegal or improper is the only way to make them pay. What else do you do? Take away a gold star off the board of life for them?

BTW, the premise of "each should be responsible for his own health(care)" is a predicate to making healthcare cost based on income. Otherwise, you'd be dooming everyone who couldn't make an average living to certain death if they catch pneumonia, mononucleosis, etc.

Are you saying the poor should just die off, Tony?

That's real human and intelligent.

BTW...if I were to sit and drink around your kid(s), it would not harm them or you in any way.

Can I do that? Swearing in front of them? Telling dirty jokes?

My...I am starting to like this liberation thing. I think I'll go get me some crack and a hooker tonight, since that doesn't hurt anyone else. lol

The only benefit I see is a sign I saw about 2 days ago just outside a bar:

"Finally, beer is cheaper than gas. Drink, Don't Drive."

Is that right now most alternatives (solar, cars, whatever) are just too damn expensive for the everyday joe.

And that was one of my major points as well.

I'm not going to play the blame game (even though I suppose I already have) because we're all to blame in some part.

However, my original rant was that until we all figure this out, the average everyday joe gets screwed (I suppose there is nothing new about this though).

I am a hardcore free market kind of guy. But there is something really wrong with life when the price of gas and food becomes so ridiculous that people have to choose between putting gas in their car and eating.

I just ask everyone this:

As we are all arguing back and forth, please keep in mind all the people less fortunate than you. To them, it isn't some mind exercise. It is their life.

would not suffer from imposed guidelines for conservation.

Only the insufferable masses of psuedo-well-to-dos in this country who think having a Platinum or Centurion card is something that makes them better and gives them the right to spend and do as they wish.

Most people who conserve would just be living within the imposed standard that they already most likely have for themselves.

It's the selfish, wasteful, gluttonous, pious ilk who would whine and puke their speel about how they're being wronged.

I love vanity...it suits so many of the intellectually insignificant.

Rising dollar in Canada means layoffs in some sectors, people who work making products mostly bought by Americans. Many Canadians used to make a living because our labour costs were lower but no longer.

Regarding outsourcing, the latest is to move call centers to rural centers - lower cost of living, lower wages, but at least in the same country.

I was calling my internet provider yesterday and spoke with a customer service rep in India. I really had to lead them through the nose to get what I needed from them. It was frustrating.

James

Dude, chill out!

First off, please explain to me exactly how the US getting out of Iraq would solve anything.

Would you really prefer a nuclear armed Iran and Iraq? Why not throw in Syria and North Korea too?

Let me tell you something Ozzie boy. Perhaps you don't get foreign policy because Canada hasn't ever really had one.

Get over your anti-American attitude. Please stay on topic.

1) If gas prices are so much higher in Canada and Euprope, why haven't you all taken the lead in developing alternatives?

2) Your higher prices are for the most part only because of your governments. Taxes for socialized medicine is one reason.

How do you plan on continuing to tax gas so high if prices reach say double what they are today?

You keep saying Brazil, Brazil, Brazil.

Ok, and you've made the point that the US doesn't have enough grain to go the pure ethanol route like Brazil because in your words, we don't have enough land and we have too many cars.

What will happen to Brazil when they start growing like China? Brazil is already growing like a weed year over year.

What happens to their whole sugar cane ethanol industry? Will it be able to keep up?

I doubt it. As more and more Brazilians get cars, drive, have larger families, develop suburbs, want air conditioning...sounds like China doesn't it.

Believe me, even Brazil won't be self sufficient forever.

and who would set these standards and what would the standard be based upon?

Tell me again how you consider yourself conservative in any way, shape, or form?

I have determined that since you do not NEED it to survive, I am going to come take your amplifier and guitar, because they needlessly waste electricity. No dishwasher or powered lawn mower for you either. I have decided that you don't NEED them, and it is gluttonous of you to waste resources like that.

Having a house and an apartment is also wasteful, because you gluttonously need to have duplicates of many of the things in life we need to get through the day.

Lets shatter that glass house you are lording from. No one has any right to infringe on other peoples lives, as you have claimed you believed in before.

Stop and think about what imposed standards would mean and where it would lead. Where does it stop and who controls it?

Basically, there 3 means to get gas prices down:

Immediate means- personal conservation:

carpool, plan trips and do things all in one circuit rather than back and forth for each task, take your lunch to work instead of driving to McDonalds or Subway, turn out lights when you're not using them, walk to the convenience store instead of driving 2-3 blocks.

Near-term (6 months to 5 years) - corporate development:

develop more fuel efficient cars, downtrend large pricey gas-guzzling vehicles and (due to supply being low?) price them outrageously ($100k and up), work toward migrating to green technologies rather than sitting on 150 year old ones, move toward instancing a workplace environment that utilizes natural means of operations rather than man-made, implement existing alternative, green(er) technology.

long-term (5 years and out) - resource exploration and optimization:

finding what new resources can be tapped, developing technologies that will best utilize them and waste the least possible, and developing new technologies that minimize or don't at all have dependence on fossil fuels.

But no matter what anyone says...the only way to get [b]*immediate*[/b] relief at the pump...is for all of us to do our part.

If demand doesn't go down, the market and corporates will continue to drive it up through speculation and processing control.

Otherwise, we're all in for 1-5 years of high gas prices.

People like you before the war said George Bush went to war for cheap oil.

Now, after the war started, you all say he did it to raise the price of oil.

Could you please make up your mind?

George Bush went to war for one main reason whether you agree with it or not and whether it was a good reason or not.

George Bush started this whole thing to prevent the Middle East from being nuclear armed along with biological, chemical, etc.

You do realize that there are some people in this world that would like to kill you simply for the fact that you are not a Muslim right?

Nobody likes the current US foreign policy of being proactive and facing tomorrow's threats today before they grow out of control.

As opposed to Europe's appeasement policies of the past. Foreign policy to most European countries is wait to be attacked first than counter.

Well, let me tell you something. That won't work in the future. And if you think it will, after your first city goes up in a radioactive cloud of smoke, you'll get the point.

1) As evidenced by my time driving US roads and Canadian roads, and by the dealer statistics that I am familiar with, Canadians buy smaller vehicles than our US counterparts. Yet we still run farms, construction business, camp in the wilderness etc. Don't get me wrong there are still lots of people driving luxury SUVs in the city commute, but on average, we drive smaller.

2)Most of the funding for health care comes from a direct tax, differs from province to province - my employer pays it, same way your emplyer would pay an HMO.

3) There is funding for alternatives. You may recall that the biggest fuel cell company in the world is Canadian (Ballard), and they work with many car makers around the world. Our government gave them substantial R&D grants, tax breaks etc. Our government also subsidises ethanol production(before it became an issue), and mandating minimum 5% ethanol in all gas in a few years.

We aren't perfect by any means (we make low speed electric cars that are popular in the US but can't be licensed in Canada, for example).

But we have taken some steps.

Many Americans make assumptions based on what they hear or don't hear in their media about Canada - you know what they say about assuming...

James

[i]and who would set these standards and what would the standard be based upon?[/i]

a panel of reasonable people...and hopefully, not a government agency.

I still can't believe you and Tony espouse that it is ok for you to do whatever you want to do even if it pollutes or causes others discomfort or inconvenience.

[i]Tell me again how you consider yourself conservative in any way, shape, or form?[/i]

I don't go driving when I want, drinking when I want, smoking when I want, and don't go thinking i can do anything I want whenever I want just because it's not illegal. That is true conservativism. Living by the minimum. Not being a free-spirit in every opportunity. Not indulging in everything i have the means to do.

[i]I have determined that since you do not NEED it to survive, I am going to come take your amplifier and guitar, because they needlessly waste electricity. [/i]

I play acoustic guitars, Mr. Know-it-all :p lol steeeeeeeeeee-rike one!

[i]No dishwasher or powered lawn mower for you either. [/i]

I don't have a dishwasher either Mr. Assumption :p ...steeeeeeeeeeee-rike two !

BTW...I'll give up my lawnmower as soon as all golf clubs and bars shut down in your area. They're unnecessary too. :p lol

[i]I have decided that you don't NEED them, and it is gluttonous of you to waste resources like that.[/i]

2 of 3 things you assumed were wrong. I guess I'm 3 times more efficient as you thought. I expect and apology. Thank you. lol

[i]Having a house and an apartment is also wasteful, because you gluttonously need to have duplicates of many of the things in life we need to get through the day.[/i]

#1) I had to take this job. I needed the money. I have to buy a car sometime, since mine is 8 years old and they do not know why it is running bad. I have made it last as long as I could. Sorry that doesn't meet your expectations

#2) Actually, having a house and an apartment is for more green and efficient than me running 85 miles each direction 5-6 days per week. I have everything shut off in my house during the week, save for the AC that I set to 83 (solely to prevent mold growing in there that could KILL ME...but i guess you'd like me dead).

I now drive 10% of what I used to when I first started here, and I make sure that things are powered off and the least amount of power is consumed when I am not in residence at one of them.

[i]Lets shatter that glass house you are lording from. No one has any right to infringe on other peoples lives, as you have claimed you believed in before.[/i]

Sounds like someone peed in your cereal...and, my glass house is safety glass...so throw away at it! :p lol

How am I infringing on your life, if I have to live by the same standard as you?

If a guideline is set by a body who analyses and determines a correct path, it is across the board...fair to everyone. So long as it is a reasonable standard, then why do you have a bone up your butt about it? Are you afraid it might cramp your life just a little? That you might actually have to...CHANGE?? *gasp!*

[i]Stop and think about what imposed standards would mean and where it would lead. Where does it stop and who controls it?[/i]

Well, it couldn't be anywhere worse than where we are now, JD.

Look at what letting corporate America run footloose with our economy has done to our country:

-Housing glut
-Poor economy
-Higher unemployment
-Highest home foreclosure rate in over 20 years
-People losing jobs left and right

Corporate America took advantage of the housing market 5-6 years ago. Home prices skyrocketed. Then 3-4 years ago, it started to tank. They ran with their profits, often leaving consumers stranded. Now, they have their monies. And many people got sold into a corner.

Corporate America has exploited the oil market. There are millions of gallons of refining capacity available in the USA, but oil companies don't want to spend a penny of their 4 years of record breaking profit to upgrade them and refine more. That doesn't benefit them.

Corporate America exploited the mortgage market. Corporate lenders went out and made loans to people who they knew could not afford them, and now after they've taken 2-4 years of their money they are foreclosing on them and taking the property back. They haven't lost a thing, but the consumer has lost everything.

So tell me again, JD:

why should i trust business more and let them set the standards for pricing in my life since they have been screwing me and you so bad for the past 5 years and who i have no say so on who runs it, instead of my government who i vote into office and has to represent all people?

I think your view is distorted. You seem to believe that personal [b]indulgence[/b] is a freedom. It's not. It's a privilege. Just like that driver's license you get issued. Just like the copy of Microsoft running on the computer. And, abusing privilege often gets them revoked.

You seem actually scared and (surprisingly) paranoid about government actually setting standards to try and improve the way of life that doesn't directly benefit you greatly.

Are you really that scared of change?

Do you really think that government is going to botch things up any worse than American business has done to our country?

Honestly...just sit back and think about it:

How free are you to go out and spend your disposable cash now at the end of the Bush administration's tenure after letting corporate America prosper while most working individual Americans have been made to suffer financially?

Were you having to spend as much at the end of Clinton's administration when the national budget was in balance and unemployment was at one of it's lowest times in history?

I'd rather let government consult educated individuals from a wide array of talents and determine a right path for our country, than to entrust selfish, money-hungry, capitalist business persons who have no motivation other than to create a schema for the American way of life that will most benefit them monetarily.

I put people before money or self-indulgence.

I will ignore the one that just irritates me with his one cycle theme.

Back on track, that is exactly my problem with alternate fuels right now and the argument that we shouldn't drill... You need both being pushed to control costs so that the average citizen can afford to live. And nowhere do I see any of the groups which only advocate one approach(alternate fuels) addressing that. They are more then willing to point fingers and blame what ever group they are unhappy with, but they are unwilling or flat out just don't care to address cost concerns. Even to those that do advocate alternate fuels also. Because we are advocating a multi pronged approach to energy, we are fools. Or stupid.

Dan

I DO have a RIGHT to what I decide brings me happiness, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

You do NOT have a right to infringe on others.

The basis of our country, dude.

And you know very well that there is no group out there that is going to save us without putting forth their own selfish agendas. Junk science, emotions, and guilt are not a license to rule.

Politicians are not to be trusted, which is why there are so many limits to what they can do.

If you choose to turn yourself into a shut-in out of guilt or shame, that is your choice.

mold, do you run a de-humidifier to help with that? The dampness combined with heat, right?

[i]People who are conserving would not suffer from imposed guidelines for conservation.[/i]

It depends on how it's implemented, and how you define conserving. Almost everything I've seen proposed will increase the tax on fuel, which will be detrimental to the less than wealthy who are more than likely already minimizing their optional fuel usage, while allowing the likes of Al Gore to continue flaunting his hypocrisy by burning up 45,000 gallons of jet fuel every month.

[sorry, hit submit too soon]

[i]It's the selfish, wasteful, gluttonous, pious ilk[/i]

How do you propose to define these terms? and under what legal concept?

were based on the escape from tyranny and being downtrodden and the right to a better life. not to behave however gives you the most benefits and fun.

i guess you get persecuted for your religion daily, eh?

[i]I DO have a RIGHT to what I decide brings me happiness, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.[/i]

True. I guess you've never infringed on anyone else's rights tho. right? ever speed? ever had just one beer and drove? ever had a piece of trash blow out of your car and not stopped to pick it up? those all infringe on other's rights. both legally and morally.

[i]You do NOT have a right to infringe on others.[/i]

True too.

[i]The basis of our country, dude.[/i]

No, the basis of our country is our constitution...which also states in its very roots that we endeavor to:

"...establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote [b]the general welfare[/b], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."

Guess you and all the "let me do what i want" folks aren't so patriotic after all, are ya? ME ME ME = against the founding principle of creating a more perfect union.

[i]And you know very well that there is no group out there that is going to save us without putting forth their own selfish agendas. Junk science, emotions, and guilt are not a license to rule.[/i]

Nope, but I think an assembled panel of people from various different parts of professional, educational and government areas could come together and make the best informed decision.

You seem to think I want to put it in the hands of one special interest. That's not what I want. I want government to get information from educated, credible people. Not just from PACs and SIGs and lobbyists.

[i]Politicians are not to be trusted, which is why there are so many limits to what they can do.[/i]

To quote Carlos Mencia: DUR DUR DURRRRRRRRR! That goes without saying. lol

[i]If you choose to turn yourself into a shut-in out of guilt or shame, that is your choice.[/i]

I'm not a shut-in. I just don't think I should indulge my every whim just because I have a job and earn a paycheck. Lots of Americans work, and I have no more right than them to pollute and use resources and create refuse.

And just because I don't go and paruse bars for women every time I have a free minute doesn't mean I am a shut-in.

It means I'm not a slut like you!! lol :p j/k hehe

[i]mold, do you run a de-humidifier to help with that? The dampness combined with heat, right? [/i]

running a dehumidifier in florida is like the captain trying to save the titanic by scooping out water...with a Dixie cup.

There are forms of mold here that, if they infect your lungs, you have a 75% chance of dying. Hence, why I run my AC. It keeps them from ever growing and me from being worm food ;) lol

[i]It depends on how it's implemented, and how you define conserving. Almost everything I've seen proposed will increase the tax on fuel, which will be detrimental to the less than wealthy who are more than likely already minimizing their optional fuel usage, while allowing the likes of Al Gore to continue flaunting his hypocrisy by burning up 45,000 gallons of jet fuel every month.[/i]

but by the same token, you say that being able to do what you want and prosper in your life is okay.

isn't okay for al gore to prosper too?

[i]How do you propose to define these terms? and under what legal concept? [/i]

those that every other proposed term has been defined under...law.

"I still can't believe you and Tony espouse that it is ok for you to do whatever you want to do even if it pollutes or causes others discomfort or inconvenience."

If you believe I (personally) am harming you, or violating your rights, take legal action against me (personally). It's called Due Process. Prove that I am doing something wrong before you attempt to penalize me. Otherwise, my rights are being violated.

We can't drill in ANWR, or 80% of the US coastline, we can't get the MASSIVE oil deposits running under Colorado and Utah, we haven't built a refinery in 30 years, thanks to lawsuits from the environmental-whack-jobs.

et cetera et cetera.

The IRS never has to file against you in court to penalize you. You should sue them.

BTW, not everything that is wrong to do, say, or entice is part of a process of tort. It's part of that personal responsibility thing, not legal code.

Hence, why I guess you don't understand it. Everything that is wrong is only what is written in a lawbook and will get you a fat settlement in court.

You must be highly qualified then.

Common antiknock additives include:
Tetra-ethyl lead
Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT)
Ferrocene
Iron pentacarbonyl
Toluene
Isooctane

They still use burn rate modifiers that reduce ping and post-ignition conbustion that they were using in leaded gas in eth 70's.

Detergents are a main additive, detergents for cleaning injectors (stopping them from gumming up).

You have clearly displayed absolutely no knowledge on the subject at all, that's okay nobody expects you to know about fuels if you have not studied them,and even with facts put forth, you STILL continue to tirelessly drone on and on about absolute garbage without a clue.

If you have a plethora of engineer friends, why are you asking me? I am an automotive engineer, and I am tellign you the plain facts that you can look up yourself anytime. if you want to argue about something of which you admittedly have no knowledge, go for it, but you are on your own.

There are others on TR that share this knowledge too, I wonder why they haven't piped in to correct me?

As for teh US havign better gas than Canada, think again. We have stricter guidelines than most US states, the only one that is close to Canada is Califronia after the emissions act of 1986.

As for which grade or what the best is in the US, it varies by state and can't be determined, the fact that you even mentioned it tells me you have no idea what you are trying to debate.

For someoen with a host of automotive engineers ot talk to "from the auto engineers I talked to" you should be a little more aware, its surprising. I'd say you were probably talking to Automotive mechanics, when I was in school most accepted that certification as opposed to another 3 years of school. Out of every 60 mechanics I'd say perhaps 1 or 2 go on to become engineers or members of the SAE.

If you want to learn about gasoline: http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/autos/gasoline-faq/part1.html

I feel like I've just given a child an automatic gun, just read it carefully before extracting single sentences to throw out as your argument.

if yuo want to know more, pay the cash, put in the time and go to school yourself. I don't get paid for arguing automotive with clueless people on internet forums.

I offered you teh facts, you seem to not want to accept them. Go talk to your engineer buddies and argue with them instead.

And I can dig up 20 dispeslling those MYTHS. Instead of buying into newspaper hype, why not think logically about it.

DO yuo really think that a properly runnign car with a full tank of gas is less efficient that one that has been running on a qurter tanmk for a few months? Give your head a shake and get prepared to pay the mechanics bills.

I don't min, I get people like you all the time. They read it in a book once, but why is their car in MY garage today while they are trying to get me to sign off on a conditional Air Care pass?

I'll pull the filters and throttle body, show them the crap they sucked off the bottom off the tank and them hand them the bill too.

If you want to argue with a mechanic, go ot yoru shop and tell him your BS. I don't have time for this crap, unless you want me to pull your car apart and show you the problems you are ignoring.

My god, what hypoccrisy!

First of all, I am not your mechanic. It is not for me to prove anything to you, I posted links to sources of eth information I provided, if you haven't checked them Google it, search back through the thread and look at it yourself. If you have a problem with what is presented, offer some alternate proof, don't just expect OTHERS to prove themselves over and over again because you don't believe them, that is not my burden but yours.

I have NEVER EVER said that the solution is the same as Brazil's, why have you raise dthat question twice? If you don't believe it, that's one thing, you can write to Brazil's and question their claims? If you don't understand it, get some help. The burden is not on me, I already provided the info, you can check it yourself.

See, where you are wrong is taht you simply don't believe what someoen says, then you ask them to prove it and that they are unsubstantiated claims. When in actuality you should simply find proof that YOU are correct, that the facts presented are incorrect and then provide links to THAT information.

You just aren't very good at this, it's like debating with a small child who just says "no it isn't" to everything you say, not exactly clever, are you?

Prove me wrong if that is your goal.

As James has already pointed out, your posturing and poking simply makes you look uninformed and is quite stupid.

As far as Brazil is concerned, your only retort is that it can't last forever, a ncie speculative reply based on a guess of their economy and the clean air mentality of the people. Your insight into their mindset is astonishing, you should get a gig in Vegas with that one.

Th only reason I have mentioned it more than once is because people have denied it; well you simply have to look it up on the internet, they got here but they can't figure out how to Google it? Gives me an idea of the mental midgets I am dealing with ayway.

As far as Canada's actions, as James mentioned we do have Ballard power, they have been retrofitting old and building new city buses for years now that run on Ballard fuel cells, they are the most forward thinkign and progressive ocmpany of its type in the world. More people ride to work here, more people take teh skytrain (rapid transit) in and out of town now. People here are surrounded by trees, mountains, pure lakes and streams. They have seen what turmoil US companies have created for our once protected lands and they certainly do not have an appetite for resource gluttony. It's in our faces, we can't ignore it as easily as most Americans seem to.

It wouldn't be the first time but you will be shown a great difference.

Instead of, as you choose to do, saying fk you Dan, or you are a fkin idiot. I'll simply prove you wrong, or comment that your assertions are retarded. An personal negative view of your country is not a problem, calling you retarded because you are American is.

You really need to start understanding what you read.

the numbers and "FACTS" yuo rpesented were all complete crap. I haven't said two words about Electric or hybrid cars, I haven't mentioned anything about it, so your claims and support are for nothing, you are supporting a non argument.

When you learn to comprehend a bit better perhaps you'll be up for the task, as for now, just click that spam link and waste some of Tammy's time.

have a great day.

I don't call people here aholes, I don't tell people to fk off, I don't tell people they are fkin idiots, YOU do that, not me.

The reason your post was removed had nothign to do with the numbers, the numbers you reported had nothign to do with anythign i've said anyway. You were ranting on about how long it takes to create a battery for an electric car and how much it takes to build hybrid cars. Now if yuo can also go back and show me where I suggested EITHER electric cars OR hybrid vehicles in ANY of my posts here, I'll grant you that one, but you can so yuo have NO argument.

Its no different than me correcting you by going on about the oil drilling figures in Saudi Arabia, it is simply irrelevant as NOBODY has been discussing anything to do with it...wee, except you.

Here's an excercise, as you seem to like digging for nothing, go back and find all of these offensive posts where I have used similar terms to describe people as you did in your last post. That'll keep you busy for some time, I'm sure. there's a difference between claiming someoen's opinion sounds idiotic and callign someone a fkin idiot as you have done again in yoru last post, but I'll let that one go, you clearly aren't playing with a full deck at this point. Oh, quick report that as spam!

Don't bother, it's not the same at all, not in the smallest way.

Rick,
Your points a very good however, not sure where you are but I have friends and family that don't make $15000.00 a year and some with from 2-6 kids. These are families that both parents work. And they make to much money for assistance. I can tell you they do go without alot.
I am just barely over your 30000.00 mark and I am an IT Manager. Here in the midwest where I'm at, what I make is considered good. To bad they don't consider the fact that with fuel, food, utilities, medical, etc what I make frankly sucks.
This is a crisis and a shame in one of the Best countries in the world.
Oh, some of the suggestions on saving fuel are lame if you look at the actual savings they would create. And they don't help with everything else that has inflated.
Best solution would be to release the fuel cell technology. Of course that has the potential of actually putting the oil companies out of business. I have been following the fuel cell technology since it's early days and although the real promising ones were bought by Utility Companies and Oil companies and now most of the exceptional systems patents are locked under their control.
I wish I had the know how to create a system. Unfortunately, chemistry or the means to build are not within my expertise or ability.
I know maybe some of you could do it?? From what I read here I know some of you could.

For Techno Rat: sorry but there's just too much to post to here now, the focus of teh topic is long dead and people are just arguing fo rteh sake of arguing. If peopl ewere actually debating stats and figures, showing relevant issues etc. it would be different but there are a coupe here that are just a pure waste fo anyone's time to even try and open up discussion with.

But for you: [i]"You North Americans are all the same anyway what difference does a border make"[/i]

You need to get outside once in a while, there is a MASSIVE difference between Canadians and Americans, as recognized worldwide, except in some parts of New Zealand I suppose.

[i]"?As for slamming New Zealand, why? What have you ever done? ?
How rude
As if to say we haven?t done anything
Do you think we are a nation of under achievers?[/i]

No, that is just YOUR interpretation of what was said, you simply read into it what wasn't actually there. I said, "Why, what have you done?"
Did you do something wrong that we should all know about?
Are you just upset that I am missing a valuable flaw in your country?

[i]No I don?t need to list the things achieved by New Zealanders
But the Internet is your friend[/i]

It most certainly is, unless I spend three days talking in circles with people who simply argue due to misunderstanding what they read, not yourself in that case but some of the others that are simply tiring.

This is so far off base onw that i am arguing fuel compenents with someone who admittedly knows nothing but insists I am wrong even when postign links to facts. Some people just have to argue for the sake of arguement, even when they have nothing relevant to contest.

You claim that the United States produces 80 million barrels of oil a day? Did that zero sneak in on you? The number is closer to 8 million barrels a day for the U.S. oil production. World-Wide oil production is 80 million barrels a day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-production

The U.S. consumes 20 million barrels a day....

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

...45 percent of which is attributed to automobile use.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_prod.htm

Per capita, the United States and Canada (along with Iceland and Greenland) are pretty equal in oil consumption, but neither is even close to being the biggest consumers of oil.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

Oil consumption in the United States has actually dropped 2 percent over the first quarter of 2008.

http://www.startribune.com/business/18148539.html

Making a case for drilling at ANWR:

http://www.anwr.org/case.htm

[i]DOI (Department of the Interior) estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).[/i]

[i] In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.[/i]

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html

17 billion barrels, by the way, at our current rate of consumption, could produce ALL the oil used in the United States for 2.5 years. (Could be doubled - or more.) And considering that ANWR would only supplement current supplies, not replace them, it could be a significant factor for several decades. (This does not take into account the benefits from the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.) Throw-in the off-shore fields and oil shale in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, North and South Dakota - which estimates have been in the 200 billion barrels range - and the United States has the potential to produce HUGE amounts of oil - even more than the current production of Saudi Arabia and Canada combined.

The largest oil company in the United States (Exxon/Mobile), by the way, controls only 3 percent of the world's oil supply. That company is dwarfed by the real players and controllers - state owned companies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al.

No source, but it's accurate.

(By the way, good interview with Sonja! And thanks for that shout-out.)

to impose costs which "others" have no control over onto those "others". By what theory is it OK for you to, for example, have children and impose their health care costs onto others?

Why then, would not those "others" have a right to limit if and how many children you could have, in order to control their costs?

What? you don't think that's reasonable? Well that's the problem when you get rid of personal responsibility and replace it with mob rule. When you vote to take away liberties that you don't like from some people, you give them the right to take away liberties they don't like from you. Your ox just hasn't been gored... yet!

Oz, Rick, Techno, PEACE guys. None of this helps and is definately off topic. Why don't you all try to actually get together and come up with a solution or an idea for a solution. Heck Oz as an Engineer surely you could come up with something that could maybe cut fuel consumption in half. Personally I believe the Fuel Cell is our ticket from oil. $4.00 a gallon Gas SUCKS(pardon my language). Guys your all of above average IQ's get off trying to bash each other.
(off topic but I'm old)I served with some canadians in the Army and my son did in a joint effort in Iraq and Afganistan (he was a combat medic)So I'm glad we have you Canadians as neighbors.

[i][inserted: Tony thinks that] Everything that is wrong is only what is written in a lawbook and will get you a fat settlement in court.[/i]

If it's not in the law book, it's rightness or wrongness is a matter of non-enforcable opinion.

"People like you before the war said George Bush went to war for cheap oil."
People like me? No, you can search back through several thousand posts I've made since teh war began, I have NEVER said that it was to get cheap oil. I agree that that is a motivator for the US to get into Iraq and change things up, but not as a reson for teh war, not once in 8 years and thousands of posts. People like me? What do you know about people like me? nothing.

[i]"Now, after the war started, you all say he did it to raise the price of oil.[/i] agsain, dreaming up things i haven't said. I HAVE said that it is in GWB's BEST interests to have the US pay more for oil. Yuo rely ono Arabian investments hevily, they own a large part of America in teh form of land, properties, corporations etc. The mroe money THEY havem the more they spend in America, America needs money right now, BIG TIME. The alternative is that they start trading in PetroEuros and pullign US investments for investments in their new European market. Again, you NEED Saudi money, rich Saudi's are good investors in your country and right now that is desparately needed. This sdoesn't mean you went to war for low priced oil and it doesn't mean you weant to war for high priced oil. It means exactly what it says, you NEED their money right now and can't afford for them to earn less of it.

I HAVE seen others say it was about low priced oil, however that is senseless as this war just as any other, drives gasoline prices skyhigh. In this case due to terrorists damagign pipelines and restricting teh number of barrels the Saudis extract each day.

Canada just had a good discussion with them about increasing production, hopefully it wont be merely 200,000 barrels per day.

[i]"George Bush went to war for one main reason whether you agree with it or not and whether it was a good reason or not.

George Bush started this whole thing to prevent the Middle East from being nuclear armed along with biological, chemical, etc.[/i] No he didn't. wellalmost.

gwb first tried to suggest he had proof that Saddam was harbouring WMD. The inspectors were successfully finishing inspections at the time and their last report was that no such metarials had been found, they were approx 6 weeks off of completing the inspections at the time.

They had been kicked out several times by Saddam, who was retaliating at America for witholding shipments of medical supplies and food for Iraq for reidiculous amounts of time (sometimes shipments sat fo r9 months before inspection, andy perishables were destroyed, including medicicne which had expired), due to DPG insteactions.

In order ot complete inspections, GWB met with leaders of other nations and had agreed that the USA and other allied nations would use force if necessary to COMPLETE INSPECTIONS, not to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. (This is what Kerry originally agreed to that everyone incorrectly said he flipped on when he didn't support a full scale invasion).

GWB removed weapoins inspectors, nto allowign them to finish and launched an invasion anyway.

He had claimed it was due to "imminent threat from WMD", which was complete crap, had not been proven and was in the process of being DISproven. He also claime dhe had proof that Saddam had sought out nuclear technology. His CIA members that were there to check into these claims had JUST finished repoting that Saddam had NOT been seekign teh ability to refine uranium to weapons grade material but had sought out nuclear power, which even at that time had failed and was unavailable to him.

His speechwriter, in an interview, had said that he was instructed to leave that out and just have it that there was proof that Saddam had sought out nuclear technology. A bit misleading, but americans bought it all the same.

Then there was undeniable proof that Saddam had WMD again, this time it was proposed by an 'informant' in the area nicknamed "Cueball".

In order to launch a full scale invasion and take focus away form Afghanistan, allies demanded more proof as they had already found out that cueball was not reliable and that he had ulterior motive for saying as much, he wanted saddam goen too.

GWB refused to wait for mroe proof, he had support of the Americans he had mislead and was off to invade Iraq, well at least to send thousands of Americans in to die for his cause anyway.

some people had the wherewithal to suggest doing what the allies suggested and seeking otu proof, but GWB turned Americans against one another by saying you are either with us or against us. If you wanted more confirmation, you were deemed against the US, anti-American and even a terrorist by many, especially here.

now that the truth is seen, we can all agree that perhaps there should have been firther investigation, after looking at teh state of Afghanistan now, perhaps you should have stayed teh course there, with allies. Perhaps the allied coalition would now be in control enough to focus an allied effort on Iraq and neighboring countries.

But we'll never knwo becaus eyou were either with us or against us and now you are at war. Americans die all teh time for no logical reason, nobody is any safer than before Saddam was removed, nobody is any better off, yuo don't see benefits in aAmerica, your dollar has dropped in value to become a quetsionable investment, your properties are being foreclosed all over as america just isn't as prosperous these days due to suc hja huge deficit on the books.

All in all a terrible move, a terrible idea all terribly executed.

But at NO TIME AT ALL, did I say that you were going in for cheaper oil, that was said by some but sure as hell not by me.

Your right, way off topic. Thanks for the kudos I know most Canadians get along with most americans, its just the few who think they run the world and are above the rest that get to me.

as for being an engineer, it is the SAE (like teh oil grading system) Society Of Automotive Engineers, I am neither a civil or marine engineer bt trade, just an auto engineer who is certified in Air Care testing and alternate fuels.

I have been watching Ballard do the fuel cesl thing and they are definitely onto something, it seems that half of our city busses use them now.

vs what? non-enforcable crime?

the only difference is when legislation makes it criminal, i.e. [b]legally[/b] wrong.

because something is not criminal, does not make it right.

and just because something is not against a written law, it doesn't it's not wrong.

And the opposite is true.

In Kentucky, you can marry a 13 year old girl. That's legal. Is it wrong?

Do you condone and say that it's absolutely fine since it's on the law books as legal marriage??

By your way of thinking, law makes something absolutely valid or invalid.

So, I guess child molestation is not wrong, as long as a state or county or country passes a law saying it's alright.

Next thing you'll say is that gay marriage wasn't honorable before CA actually passed a law making it a legal union.

I rest my case.

[i]Ethanol is good but if you look at the power output it is 25% less than petrol. So it should be at least that much cheaper.[/i]

It costs MORE to produce, and you burn more of it to get the same amount of work done. Not to mention that it also increases the cost of our food.

Embrace the second amendment, friend :)

that government...has a lot more, and a lot bigger sized, rounds than 30,000 ;)

Plus, they got more people to fire back at with too.

BTW, I only have about 200 rounds. I guess that means I'm a better shot lol :D

I don't have to worry tho. They know I'm a member of HAP...Heavily Armed Pacifists...our motto...peace through superior firepower ]:) lol

Now there's another?
I don't mind reading your comments, I have just grown so tired of this topic as it is way off track now.

There are people who admit to knowing nothing, that simply contest facts for the sake of argument, it happens here a lot and yoo just have to leave it behind after a while.

Yes UK, originally.

no one is talking about only drilling in the anwar, as there are other areas that would/should/could be tapped at the same time.

The speculation would change, but the oil will not hit the market for 4 to 10 years, depending on who you listen to. If it were a MINIMUM of four years, all the more reason to start today.

It is not to be done INSTEAD of other measure, but in conjunction with.

A lot of small things do add up.

alternate fuels, and changing from oil where we can are also things to look at.

I am surprised no one is talking about dropping our highway speed limits back down to 55 again. man, did that suckass when it was that slow. (88 km). After all, isn't that another way government can FORCE us to conserve?

How will drilling lower the cost of gas at the pumps even in the long term. You are nto abotu to create enough to supply yourselves and will aways rely on global oil pricing.

IN Canada we drill heaps of oil from Alberta, it is stoll sold at world market prices though

The banjo plucking away? LOL

[i]By your way of thinking, law makes something absolutely valid or invalid.[/]

No. Laws prohibit, or modify other laws. Right and wrong are opinions unless and until legislated or adjudicated.

So if you think me driving 300 miles once a week to visit my mother is wrong, you can sue me in order to try to force me to cease and desist, or contact your legislator and tell him you'd like him to create a law banning a. driving 300 miles in one week; b. visiting one's mother; or c. banning driving more than 299 miles to visit. Any one of those, or any other you can likely think up, is going to violate at least one constitutionally protected right.

[i]No. Laws prohibit, or modify other laws. Right and wrong are opinions unless and until legislated or adjudicated.[/i]

Laws prohibit nothing. They establish the means with which law enforcement can detain individuals, and guidelines for prosecution and sentencing in the jurisdiction's court of law.

And as I said before by your way of thinking, marrying and having sex with a 13 year old is alright as long as you move to Kentucky to do it. Law means okay.

Rick,
What a fantastic topic full of excitement, drama, intrigue. Dealing with social issues, bigotry, political turmoil, and lots of humor.
Dude, this should get an emmy.
And the Cast, Terrific. But, forgive me. by the time I got to the end I forgot where it started.
Sorry a little sarcasm but, this is cool. I'll bet if you all keep going we will see a solution or world war 3.
(I for one feel privilaged to be able to even get to read views of someone in another country. Course I've been accused of being a hopeless romantic) Plus I just know we all get to share the issues of the world despite our individual beliefs because the issue of oil dependance costs everybody on the planet except maybe the people controlling the oil and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
Meanwhile someone's elderly parents freeze to death cause they couldn't afford to pay their utility bill. Or better yet maybe a neighbors baby has to settle for a bottle of water cause milk is up to $4.00 a gallon.
Dang all that from the Gas Prices.

anyone that disagree's with you.

Your choice of words used within this thread.

Fk off oz... Your a hypocrite.

You think your above it all... Your worse then the rest.

Dan

nt

[i]Laws prohibit nothing[/i]

You're absolutely right. Laws only provide that the government can impose consequences for certain actions. [b]That means I can do anything that I want[/b], as long as I am able to, and understanding that there may be consequences imposed.

Glad we cleared that up. Guess I will continue to visit mom weekly until those consequences are imposed. Maybe I'll rent a Hummer and an 8,000 lb trailer for the trip.... just because I can :)

Oz, no shout out for James :( I even took the time to track you down.

As for the impact of new oil on prices, its classic supply demand economics.

In Economics 101 I leared about supply demand and alternatives. If the demand for chunky peanut butter exceeds supply, price will go up, increase the supply price goes down. If the demand goes high enough some people will chose alternatives, starting with something close (Smooth peanut butter) and working out to more distant alternatives (Jams/Honey).

One of the tricks here is that Saudi is playing the game rather well. When the prices go up too fastand it looks like people will curb their demand or chose an alternative, Saudi opens the taps and voila, things settle down. They keep us hooked on oil.

Not many, outside of JCK, seem to talk about the other way to bring demand down, which is to use less. Of course while "western consumption" may decrease, it is likely that Chinese and Indian demand will keep on climbing, so our ability to reduce demand will diminsh in the future.

James

You didn't prove me wrong. You didn't even address time lines with regard to my position or cost.

Where oh where oz did you prove me wrong.

idiot again comes to mind.

bigot just from watching every comment you make to every american that disagree's with you.

Just in this thread.

Oz, stay in canada. Your not smart enough to be in USA.

dAN

Why I bother to reply to your anymore is beyond me, I guess I'm just a sucker.

as for me calling someone a pu$$y, there's a difference between saying "k off, Dan, you're a loser" and saying "Don't be a pu$$y" or "only a "Pu$$y would do that" etc.

Saying someone is a Pu$$y is hardly as insulting or rude as telling someone to f_k off.

As you seem to not understand how a sentence is structured makes a great difference in how it is perceived, I'll just leave you to it.

Your post was pulled for a good reason, it was full of direct insults, fk off, fk you etc that had no bearing on what you were trying to say, added no emphasis to your comments in any way except to be a direct insult with no direction. And you've continued to do it, without my saying anything.

My comments have been reported and left alone after review more than once.

If your comment doesn't stand up to a moderators review, perhaps you shouldn't be complaining to me, I don't delete posts, and should be questioning someone else, while pointing out all of the posts you keep referring to me posting.

Your dislike for my comments is not my problem, there are people who will review and make that decision themselves upon your request.

When you get a speeding ticket do you state your case to the cop who wrote the ticket or are you better of telling the judge?

I'd say your best bet is to just deal with it and clean up your own posts instead of looking to other to do it and then riddling your own posts with direct, foul mouthed insults.

As for others, they can speak for themselves, they don't need your two cents and are probably better off without your input to begin with.

I was correcting your inaccuracy :p lol

You go ahead and rent that hummer and 8,000lb trailer. And when you can't stop fast enough and run over someone, they will sue you. :)

BTW if you have one, never take your adolescent daughter to Kentucky. I bet someone up there might think she's "real purdy" lol

Sometimes I'll find myself working by accident and have to stop it in a hurry.

Actually, with some new band developments in the UK I have been as busy as hell lately, only thing is, it is all at night due to the time difference. I have little energy for my day job right now and since I padded my month well, I have a good two months where I can just watch orders roll in and product go out.

anyhow, enough about my work, that's boring a yucky. Sorry about missing you in the shout out, after listening to it I realized I should have said HI. But I did say all the others guys on TR, and at the time I was trying to pull names out of my.....well I didn't come up with it, either way.

I have also been adamant about a need to reduce our wasting of resources, you know very well that is my stand from previous topics too.

That's also why I see no benefit in the US drilling more oil, as if that will lower costs. Demand will stay the same because the US can't possibly provide enough oil to supply the demand and they are locked into global pricing anyway.

The issue in Afghanistan now is due to terrorism on the pipelines and wells. Production has been down since the beginning of the war, it has picked up slightly but nowhere near where it needs to be.

Every war, including WWI has driven the price of gasoline way up. When Hitler gave up on his plans to invade England, he turned and went after Russia. Russia had a valuable region that he ALMOST managed to conquer, but the Russians were too clever and Hitler was all syph'd up by then and was going stark raving mad. against his officers wishes, he got on his high horse and went after Stalingrad.

Taking over Stalingrad would have seen Hitler in a much more progressive position to win the war. It opened up access to a major sea supply route as well as weakened the German flank making it easier to go after Caucasus.
Caucasus was the OIL rich corner of Russia, once he had the oil, he had the resources to fortify his armies.

The battle of Stalingrad, still nearly two years before the D-Day invasion, was the bloodiest conflict of time. With more than 1.5 million killed on one battle and the key goal, was oil. He who has the oil has the lead. But drilling more in the US won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

Actually that battle was one of my favorite turning points of WWII. the Russians wer brilliant, not only were they equipped and used to the cold weather, but they were constantly pushed back farther and farther into Russia, leaving NOTHING for the Germans. they destroyed homes, buildings crops, food supply houses etc. they left nothing for the Germans to acquire as they advanced, thinning the army bit by bit until they had nothing left and all of Russia's forces were amassed to defeat the Germans.

Great warfare, brilliant stories or battles and plans a truly fascinating time in history. I'd say that most Europeans owe it to Russia for helping wipe out the German armies. Britain stood their ground in the Battle Of Britain but Russia stood the test of time and had the tenacity to win that battle and save their valued resources.

Don't tell me to f-k off and then call me buddy, your buddy I am not.

You asked questions and spewed on and on about topics I hadn't even mentioned, why would I waste ANY MORE effort with you? Especially providing answers to questions that I have NO idea what you are on about.

As far as being too stupid to be in teh USA, that must be it. You are very clever, I am sure that makes a lot of sense.

yup, got a brainy one here alrighty! With a little education and a lot of BS, you can too become president of the USA.

Why waste your time here, you must be one of them thar fancy book lernin' ones, aint ya?!

[i]BTW if you have one, never take your adolescent daughter to Kentucky. I bet someone up there might think she's "real purdy" lol[/i]

... "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed."

By the way, Kentucky is 16, New Hampshire is 13.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=266702&messageID=2527272

I do agree that Russia deserves the lion's share of credit for reducing the German army, but they did so with little respect or value for their own troops.

The stories about Stalingrad like "enemy at the gate" where they put soldiers into the battle with a rifle and one bullet are only slightly exagerated. At all costs to them meant, with no hope of survival. The west could not have asked that of their armies on a continued basis, but since the Red army had political officers who regularly shot anyone who objected, and since most of Russia knew what Stalin had done to the Ukraine (starved them into submission), they didn't object to the use of those tactics.

The Russian failure that lead the Germans to Stalingrad in the first place was due to Stalin's arrogance and ignorance. He knew Hitler wouldn't leave him alone forever, but he thought he had more time, and thought the pact between himself and Stalin would buy him a few more years. And Stalin needed a few more years since he purged his army of much of its officers, and hadn't had time to replace them. Churchill warned Stalin of the impending invasion, and Stalin, being paranoid, thought Churchill was playing a game, so Stalin told Hitler about the letter, and Hitler laughed it off.

After Stalingrad, when Russian factories went into full gear and the Soviet armies swelled, it was clear that Hitler was doomed. Still Stalin used his troops like pawns to be sacrificed, and wasted many troops. If Normandy never happened, I still think the Red Army would have taken Berlin, but later and at a higher cost. That was how Stalin played.

James

[i]were attacking[/i]

is how I would define "defending".

[i]when they attacked first[/i]

I would call this retaliation.

[i]/had attacked someone else[/i]

this too, unless I had good reason to believe they were preparing to attack me or someone I wanted to protect, in which case I'd call it a "preemptive strike" :)

[edit fix italics]

not too many people have died from "second-hand spit" :)

1). You responded to a comment I made to someone else, my points have stayed on topic. You disagreed. You called them opinions only. You offered nothing to prove your rant was anything else but opinions. You got defensive when I pointed out figures to support my position. You offered nothing in return. As usual.
Your only comment that even REMOTELY addressed my position was Brazil. Guess what you moron. It was not a democracy. I said 30 years. Did you read your own article and link Oz. How many years did it take for them to convert over.
Your wrong. Your biased. Your a bigot.
2). You miss quoted me and didn't have the guts to admit it. You put my comments, my position completely out of context to meet your own biased agenda. My position stated from the START was more drilling AND alternat fuel sources. No where did I divate from that position. You spun the argument off, I can't help it your not smart enough to keep up.
3). You want to push me oz on turning you in for biggoted, aragont, off color posts? I'll just go back to this weekends posts and how you personally attacked other members who disagreed with you. I will just point to your posts that showed a biggoted oppinion about american citizens. I will just point to posts here that show the same. Then oz, I will go back through just a month's worth of your biased biggoted posts to show a history. And offer to go back further.

Go for it Oz. Take your leap.

Your a liar. Your a bigot. And your a hypocrit. You wont back up your positions with source material, but you expect others to. You personally attack people, but get defensive when others do it to you.
You make comments in response to people that we are just spouse to take your word for. When others state their positions with out sources, you expect sources to support their position. You have double standards in every position you hold. You do NOT expect the same to be applied to you.

Again Oz... I give you 10 days. Count them you aragont prick. Until I can find more examples of you personally attacking, spouting your foul mouthed(see Pu$$y) responses to people that you disagree with, bigoted comments against US citizens no matter what the topic(religion, law, politics, or national policy). You will be completely aragont in that attitude and will get offended when you are called to the carpet on it for being so Anti American.

And Oz... I will report every single instance of these outbursts of yours. Because I find them offensive. I can point to posts where people felt you were offensive.

So Oz... Go for it... Be your normal biased, aragont, bigoted self. Your easy to read, your easy to prove wrong, and your easy to be shown for what you are.

In no way do I think the Russian army was not forced at gunpoint to stay for the fight until every last one was dead. They were myrdered by their own as well as the Nazis.

Germany had almost conquered southern Russia at one point, working towards Caucasan and the oil wells. that woul dhave offered teh German war machine a much needed boost right there.

But as arrogant as Stalin was, Hitler was too and wanted to make a point by taking our Stalingrad as it held Stalins name. He pulled troops from further south where they were successful and, against the wishes of many a commander whom he quickly let go, he ordered an invasion in Stalingrad.

They were simply outmatched, Russians had nothign to lose by sitting there in the snow for days while fighting, Nazi's were not equipped or used to it. Russians weren't used ot eating well, being warm etc. They had been repressed for too many years already and pretty much just stood their ground wihle being shot en mass. But the retreating and destruction of anythign left behind was a good tactical move, it allowed the Nazi's to advance but acquire nothing.

It was such a key turning point, as were the Battle of Britain, Battle of the Bulge and several others. Without Russia, the end would have been much different, if in Allied favour at all.

Sure, D-Day saw a great insurgence of allied troops. Those troops beat a tiring and overworked army back into Berlin, but should it have happened four years earlier, I don't think it would have seen the same outcome, which even then was only barely positive.

Regardless of how much it's demonized, and regardless of how much people want to find alternatives to oil, it's a fact of life that people and nations (and not only in the U.S.) will be reliant - if not dependent - on oil for a long time to come. People can close their eyes, click their heels together, and wish as hard as they want, but the implementation of any viable oil alternative is still a long way out. It simply won't happen overnight; it won't happen in a year or two; and it won't even happen in the 5-10 year range.

There are upwards of 250 million gasoline-burning automobiles in the United States, and who knows how many world-wide. Even if some magic wand could produce an alternative form of transportation overnight, people won't willingly throw away that gas-burning investment they've made. At best, it will be a gradual phase-out that will occur over the course of decades, not years, and certainly not months.

Moreover, less than 50 percent of oil consumption in the U.S. can be attributed to automobiles. The airline industry takes up a huge chunk, as does the railroad and trucking industries, not to mention homes that still use heating oil and the production of other petroleum-based products.

Oil will be a fact of life for a long time to come. So regardless of how long it might take to get new oil fields actually pumping, it's still a venture worth pursuing. If we could have opened up ANWR when we wanted to, it would be producing by now. If we could have drilled more off-shore wells when we wanted to, they, too, would be producing by now. And now, the longer we put it off, the longer it will take to get production from them. The answer - stop putting it off any longer.

You're quite skilled at ranting, raving and making straw man arguements.

I spoke of facts, you move to intent. Put down your crystal ball, because your future as a mind-reader is dismal at best.

The point *you* miss is that we are not permitted to drill in areas that if we did, would keep us going for much longer and bring down the price as a consequence.

Much as you'd like to make this personal about me or my nation, it's not.

Let me explain economics 101 to you.

High prices = scarcity of item.

That's why they are bad.

So we want cheaper gas, only an idiot would want to pay more for something, especially when that something is within easy reach.

So, rather than wallowing in your anti-american nescience, try to get a clue.

The Gordon sinclair kind, and the OZ kind.

Thank the allmighty the former outnumber the latter

Riiiiight.

The Battle of Alamein at El Alamein, in my opinion (and in the opinion of others), was the biggest turning point (and possibly the first) of the war. Had Hitler taken control of all of Egypt, he had a pact with the Muslim leaders in the Middle-East, and could have dominated in the region.

Did you know that Yasser Arafat's uncle was a personal friend and ally of Hitler? They met often, and shared the many of the same views. Hitler even bestowed honorary Arian status upon his Muslim allies. Had that happened (a German victory in Egypt), the holocaust as we now know it to be, would have been nothing compared to what would have been.

Well done, Monty!

I have yet to se esomeone so incorrect, so assumptive and so outwrdly ignorant to who he is and how he comes across in my 8+ years on TR.

the only mistake I keep making is that I find some reason to reply to you, whereas most others have already taken their ball away due to boredom, I' am still here trying to explain SOMETHING I have no idea what, to you. You're right, I must be stupid, to waste time with this crap.

2) misquoted what? Why don't you explain what you are bitchign abotu for once instead of just bitching.

3) Your comments were uncalled for, out of line with TR guidelines and completely your fault. You should know better, even this past post of yours should be removed, generally they don't let kids play here but in our case they have made an exception. See there's no need to call people foul names, you can always make your point somehow.

I have poor keyboarding skills, and they are getting better so I make fewer typos. however, you show a complete and utter inabilty to speak, spell or write a single conprehansive sentence. Yet you feel peoeple shoul dunderstand what yuo are saying? Yuo get offended when people don' tunderstand you?

And now you are going to do me a favour by giving me time? Don't make me laugh, let's make that 10 days into 15 seconds. Go for it, bring the world down around me.

"(1)Your a liar. (2)Your a bigot. (3)And your a hypocrit"

Post 1, Post2, Post3, please.
You can take all the time you want, I'm done wasting keystrokes on you.

My point: "You make comments in response to people that we are just spouse to take your word for. " Okay that one I can decypher, but a 'spouse' would be a wife or husband. I think you were trying to spell 'supposed'.

'Spoused' works in some hooked on phonics classes though I think. Just like 'axing' people questions.

I support sources when asked, I generally provide teh source when I copy one or speak from another source other than personal knowledge. If you are missing a link somewhere, specify which one next time instead of ranting away bewtween illiterate insults, again, I am done with your BS in this thread.

"When others state their positions with out sources, you expect sources to support their position."

that's the TR forums for you, catch up or be left behind. Usually, the only time I don't back a comment is when it is from personal knowledge, experience or opinion.

"Again Oz... I give you 10 days"

Stop it, now you're scaring me. I don't know what I should do, perhaps sell my notebook and sever my internet connection? Oh no, time is runnign out.

As I said before, don't bother giving me 10 days, unless you need more time to learn how to spell your post out, lets make it anytime you are ready, how's that for making your life easier?

Just don't expect me to read or take any interest in what you have to say from now on.

"Count them you aragont prick."
Now yuo see, THAT's where yuo keep screwing up, if you were more eloquent (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:eloquent&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title ) you'd have some credibilty and then when you submit your great list of harmful comments that will bring the fires of hell upon me, you'd actually have something to go on.

"bigoted comments against US citizens"

You know that old saying, "if the shoe fits wear it" and all that, you don't have to go so far out of your way to prove it to everyone, we know you are a bad example of an American and that it is your mindset and obvious lack of education that actually blackens America's name with the rest of the world.

"And Oz... I will report every single instance of these outbursts of yours. Because I find them offensive. I can point to posts where people felt you were offensive."

Take a number and have a seat.

I am completely free to offer my opinion on countries of the world, just as so many Americans offer their opoinoins of France, England, Canada, Iran, Iraq etc. There is no special exemption for Americans, though I know you feel there should be one.

"So Oz... Go for it... Be your normal biased, aragont, bigoted self. Your easy to read, your easy to prove wrong, and your easy to be shown for what you are."

Bias, there outta be a law! Anyone who shows bias is unacceptable, except yuo have done just that.

aragont, I assume you mean arrogant, sure I am arrogant. That's what makes me succesful in my line of work, I'm not a company drone who is forced into complacency by some company that sees me as a grudgingly necessary expense.

Bigoted: I find my opinions are supported and firm. I discount ridiculous posts such as the nonsense you spew here, but I show a lot of empathy for people who actually try to have a rational discussion.

Mind you, for a guy who can't spell or formulate a sentence worth beans, for a guy who thinks he is actually clever and doesn't see the constant hypocrisy in his own posts, I suppose it all makes sene, to you anyway.

You sure know how to make yourself look clever, don't you?

again, whine, bitch, rant and complain away, compile a list of teh thousands of posts I've made that you don' tunderstand and submit them to poor Tammy for her review.

I would think that after reading your last post, she'd probably give it a full three seconds consideration, as that's all your worth at this point, you're definitely not worth anyone wasting their time over, and I think most people here already know that.

That was actually a short in a TV documentary show we get called Turning Points, don't know if you've seen it or not.

yeah it would have been different, very different.

One question, what does Mr. Burns have to do with it??

Sorry, I couldn't reist.

I've had my time of being a man slut too. God only know how many little Oz's are runnign aroun dout there. You'd be happy to hear that my son is not much like me, he has a knack for fixing things and seems to have some of my mechanical aptitude but he's more like his mother than me.

LOL, I don't know why people get off on that so much. Put away teh Kleenex and sit down.

Anyone knows that demand creates higher prices, but if you think that drilling now will actually allow you to produce the 60% of your consumption that you buy from other countries, you have a lot to learn.

To think that the global price per barrel would change just becaiuse you started drillign a few more holes is insane. Once yuo have nmroe oil, Americans wil burn twice as much. Once gas is affordable, Americans will cease to care and will just start wasting oil just as with all other resources that don't seem to matter until unavailable on tap. You will inevitably be back iat square one, over and over and over again. New well and it's MardiGras, well dries up and it's time to bitch wnad whine until a new one is opened, up, then it's Mardi Gras again.

Leave a dog a whole bag of food when you go away, it wil eat until it pukes and then bark until it starves and dies.

Leave a cat a whole bag of food when you go away and it will eat, be happy and content and have some left when you return.

Your a true moron. You have no clue. None.

You can justify slandering someone with a comment like Pu$$y and consider it much less offensive then me telling you to fk off.

Your a total hypocrite that has no fkn clue on what is acceptable and what is not.

At least I'm not that much of a moron you twit.

I know what I call you is offensive. I do it because you offend me in every post you make that slanders a person not because of who they are but by the country they live in.

Your a total nut case Oz. You have no social skills at all. You have no seance of what is right and what is wrong.

They should lock you the fk up and throw away the key.

Just shut up. That last post of your shows how truely fked up you really are.

You just don't give a sht that you offend people. You justify it with what ever lame excuse works best for you, and only you.
Dan

easy enough.

I don't have to speak for others. I'll use their posts to prove my point.

Oz... You ever wonder... Why, by even your own words... People consider your anti American. Which is bigotry based on ones country of residence.

Could it be oz, that your a bigot... And again, by your own admission... You have had to defend your position more then once.

Why is it Oz... That you find it so easy to defend your position, when by your own words. You offend people by that type of comment.

Your a bigot.

Dan

Or are you so above question that we should JUST TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

I think not.

Dan

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=267053&messageID=2532247

Others will follow.

Dan

Oz, you and your anti american rants.

I have changed the way I drive to work. It saves 9 miles a day. Can you count oz, is this too much past your intellect for you to figure out what that savings is a week? A Month. 9 miles times 5... ummm 45 miles a week... Still with me oz???? Not going to fast for your feeble mind now am i. Times that by 4.... Thats the number of weeks in a month, right? You know that right? You can read a calander right? 180 miles less driving on my normal commute... I always did things my chore driving to hit all places in sequence, so I can't save anything there.

I car pool with an individual who's vehicle gets less gas then mine. We use my car. We do it twice a week, 38 miles a day round trip. Still with me oz? Still able to count? Another 76 miles a week saved... Again oz... Bear with me... Times that by 4... Remember, 4 weeks??? Another 312 miles saved. The route I changed to is less congested and I am able to hold a steady 35/40 mile per hour speed for much longer periods of time then my previous route.

So oz.... Thats 312 + 180... I save 492 miles a month in driving just by changing my route. My vehicle gets 22/23 miles to the gallon... Hmmm, divide... You can do that right Oz? I save 22 gallons a month in gas. I used 22 miles per gallon to calculate that Oz...

So oz, what have you done to save on energy?

Or, again. Are you above that? Do you hold double standards with this also.

And oz, I bought an E85... When they make the price of it to reflect the difference in miles per gallon... I will use it... I have to side track my route to get to the only station. You do remember distribution not being available, you can remember that far back can't you. But, I will use E85 to cut back further on the amount of gasoline I use.

Again Oz... What have you done to cut back.

Dan
[edited to add] And oz... single minded anti american oz... I will be monitoring what alternate fuel vechicles are avaible when I turn over this car. Unlike the average citizen, I turn cars over every 3 years. You do remember those numbers in the post you had deleted because you couldn't back your own arguments because of lack of source material for all to see.

And yes oz, I do think that is why you marked it as spam. Your a big boy... You can deal with harsh language can't you. You've dealt with by others because of your outlandish attitude, what makes this any different.

alternate fuel vehicles, hybrids to the citizens of the nation to not need that. You also never dealt with cost to do that. Distribution for alternate fuels. Affordability to average families.

Wait, you posted your opinion with nothing but Brazil as an example to back it up. That is spoused to addressed all of the issues. Guess what oz... Here is a link for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/americas/10brazil.html
[i]The ethanol boom in Brazil, which took off at the start of the decade after a long slump, is not the first. The government introduced its original "Pro-Alcohol" program in 1975, after the first global energy crisis, and by the mid-1980's, more than three quarters of the 800,000 cars made in Brazil each year could run on cane-based ethanol.[/i]
Wait, thats when they went alcohol.
[i]Consumers' suspicions remained high through the 1990's and were overcome only in 2003, when automakers, beginning with Volkswagen, introduced the "flex fuel" motor in Brazil. Those engines gave consumers the autonomy to buy the cheapest fuel, freeing them from any potential shortages in ethanol's supply. Also, ethanol-only engines can be slower to start when cold, a problem the flex fuel owners can bypass.[/i]
2003...
hmmm
[i]Today, less than three years after the technology was introduced, more than 70 percent of the automobiles sold in Brazil, expected to reach 1.1 million this year, have flex fuel engines, which have entered the market generally without price increases.[/i]
This article is 2006, and still doesnt point them as being self sufficient. My point of 30 years which you wish to ignore or ridicule. 75 plus 10.. 1985... 1985 pluss 10, that makes 20 oz... 1995... pluss 8. 28 year.

You missed the boat again oz... Where is your link stating they are self sufficient. What date did they become self sufficient. Why did it take them so long to become self sufficient. This means, vechicles on the market. Affordability. Distribution.

Oz, think it could be what I stated before. 30 years which you so ridiculed.

Shut up oz... Put up some links to back your position.

And that was only using YOUR example. Which had a goverment that did not have to go through the leglislative process that other countries do.

Again oz... wrong, wrong, wrong. Ignoring facts even in the examples you provide.

Typical oz.

Now me.. I knew it would take that long. I bought thinking in advance to be able to use something until better options are avaible. I left my options open to be able to use gas in the wait. Remember this whole argument oz... To drill for more oil until other technologies can become available. Your comment oz that Americans would just use more oil. Well damn oz... I just proved you wrong in the argument of alternate sources being avaible, and of Americans.. Yes oz, your hated Americans moving to other sources even if more oil is produced.

Again oz, you are not stating all the facts. You flat out ignore major issues in your argument.

Dan