| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Environmentalists-Friend of Big Oil and Terrorists Posted by: Jag - [28457122] Thu, May 22, 2008, 01:38 People complain about gas prices, but few know where to place the blame. The answer is simple 'Environmentalists'. The increase in oil price is directly tied to supply and demand, if were drilling in Anwar, shale in South Dakota and off the continetal shelf, we still may not have all the oil we need, but the increase in supply would drive down the price. Because of the incompetence of those in office not being proactive for new drilling, our economy is suffering and terrorists are getting better financing. This is simple economics, but seems to go Right over the heads of both Liberals and many of the general public. I wouldn't be surprised if Exxon funds the Sierra Club just to increase their profits. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 147 | Madman ID: 230542010 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:15 |
would there be a reversal of this. would there become a centralizing of smaller cities. I think gas prices would have to rise a ton to cause this to happen. For most city-type trips, I drive a hybrid and we get 45-50 mpg in town. We live 1.5 miles from two grocery stores. That means we use 6% of a gallon of gas to get groceries. Even if gas went to $30 per gallon, that's only $1.80 to get as many groceries as you want. I'm just describing the degree to which the LR city itself is sprawled. If you insist on going to north little rock to shop (they have the biggest shopping district in Arkansas, and we almost never go that far), that's a bigger deal ... a gallon of gas. Again, however, compared to, say, county and state sales taxes, this simply isn't that large of a deal (even if gas goes to $10 per gallon, that's the tax on $150 of goods). LR is small relative to Birmingham, Atlanta, etc. The bigger burbs are going to have bigger mass transit pushes. Obviously. But I don't see the price movements we've seen so far being anywhere close to enough to force this. | ||||||
| 148 | biliruben ID: 4911361723 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:39 |
Interesting, Madman. In Seattle it's more a sliding scale, not binary. The old, close-in neighborhoods in-city have maybe 100K premium over the next neighborhoods out, and they, in turn, have a 100K premium over the bordering suburbs, which have a 100 K premium... You get the picture. Our immediate problem is that the outer rings are finally seeing significant declines, but the bust is only slowly moving into the in-city neighborhoods we are interested in. I'm not sure we are going to have the patience to wait it out, and may end up farther out as a consequence. | ||||||
| 149 | Perm Dude ID: 125251210 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:49 |
Doesn't it really depend upon commuting destinations? That is, there might be pressure to go to the city based upon gas prices rising (since presumably there would be less driving in the city), but if that isn't where your work is then it is a wash. Many people move out of the city to get closer to their jobs, as businesses move out of those inner ring areas for cost reasons. | ||||||
| 150 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:07 | After reading your analysis this would lead me to believe that until gas hits atleast $10 a gallon there is not going to be anylarge scale effects on daily life. though i would have to think that vacation travel would change dramatically. | ||||||
| 151 | biliruben ID: 33258140 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:57 |
Yeah, PD. That's another thing we need to be concerned with. My wife actually works in a suburb, and I work in a close in neighborhood; though not downtown (though I could get a job downtown soon). Just to confuse the issue. If we were going to make a decision based solely on gas and today's situation, We'd buy a place near her work, and I'd ride my bike to my work. But I want to live in Seattle, damnit. ;) | ||||||
| 152 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 13:55 |
The politics of oil shale I'm disappointed in the extension of the moratorium. While Salazar may have good intentions, and he is correct in his analysis of the water issue, it's time to begin to develop this resource in a responsible manner. But as is usually the case with Orin Hatch, one can expect public ignorance on display: Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly. Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don't want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they're really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never gets to make that decision for themselves. Fortune: One of Sen. Salazar's environmental concerns involves water and the big draw on local water supplies required for oil shale production. Based on my reporting in western Colorado last year, this seems like a legitimate concern. What's your take on this? Sen. Hatch: Let's compare it to ethanol. Corn needs about 1,000 barrels of water for the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil. That's a crazy amount of water, but it's worked out alright so far because corn is grown in rainy areas, for the most part. But if you want to increase the amount of ethanol, you're going to have to go to irrigation, and then there will be major water limits on how much we can afford to grow. On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil. Fortune: Of course, water is a lot scarcer in western Colorado than it is in Iowa. Sen Hatch: It is, but remember the oil companies are going to use and recycle the water. And while we're on the environmental impact, let's talk about land use and wildlife habitat. One acre of corn produces the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 to 1 million barrels. Uh, Orin, we're talking about water needed for large-scale production of oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, not ethanol. Most of us know ethanol is a disaster. But diverting the subject doesn't address the water issue concerning oil shale, an issue that is at the heart of the subject. Additionally, Orin fails to mention that none of the water necessary for development originates in Utah. Besides that, Utah is dealing with its own water issues from the same river system, further downstream. ST. GEORGE - A "pipe dream" was how John Wall described a proposal to build a pipeline from Lake Powell across 150 miles of desert to quench the water needs of nearly a million future residents of three southern Utah counties. Wall was one of more than 40 people who spoke Wednesday night on the project in St. George. It was the second of three public meetings held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is preparing the necessary environmental documents for the project's approval. There seems to be a Jag( just let us drill)and Baldwin(Drill here, drill now, offshore, ANWR, oil; shales, etc.) mentality that permeates the rightwing blogosphere, with little regard to reality. Take Victor Davis Hansen, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson as today's examples. According to Senator Hutchinson, Federal laws also prevent us from exploiting one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah - an amazing amount that is three times what Saudi Arabia has on reserve. Our bill, The American Energy Production Act of 2008, would allow us to tap these resources with environmental safeguards. The reality is that there is no way to exploit one trillion barrels of shale oil and have any regard for environmental safeguards. And none of the "drill now, drill everywhere" proponents has offered a plan as to how to extract this oil at massive production levels given the already strained Colorado River system. Obstruction is not the answer and neither is panic, which the right is using as a propoganda tool when it comes to oil shale. Perhaps if some of these bloggers and politicians were to actually visit the Yampa, Green and White Rivers, they might recognize that their dreams of extracting a trillion barrels of oil from their watersheds would cause devastation beyond repair, a legacy that would rob future generations the pleasures of these wild and remote rivers. Salazar and the Democrats should allow the moratorium to expire next year, but Republicans should be realistic in how much oil is realistically recoverable while respecting not only the environment where the extraction originates, but the ultimate effect on all areas downriver that depend on the Colorado River. | ||||||
| 153 | Razor ID: 4532926 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 13:56 |
In Seattle it's more a sliding scale, not binary It almost always is because proximity to city center is a sliding scale. Regardless, the only variable that is changing is the cost to travel, so we don't need to talk about how much people value their time, their yard space, or their safety. Those stay the same. Many people move out of the city to get closer to their jobs, as businesses move out of those inner ring areas for cost reasons. The city is the city because that's where the majority of people work. The burbs cease to be the burbs in the traditional sense when they start to become the major center for jobs. One notable case of this that I can think of is Overland Park, KS. Here in Atlanta, we have a a fairly spread out city in that there are three major business districts - Downtown, Midtown and Buckhead, each separated by a few miles. The burbs, however, only begin when you leave the 10 mile radius from the three business districts. Atlanta has a pretty bad urban sprawl problem, and rising gas prices will almost certainly have an influence here. People live in cities to have access to amenities that are largely available only in the city, like restaurants, theatres, sporting events, public transit, work opportunities, etc. When the cost of going to these things rises, people will people reevaluate; some will stay put, some will move away and some will move closer in. The worse the urban sprawl, the more movement we will see. | ||||||
| 154 | Madman ID: 230542010 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 14:09 |
Doesn't it really depend upon commuting destinations? ... but if that isn't where your work is then it is a wash. Is this a version of the "downtown is so busy nobody works there anymore" argument? I agree that overall commute times will decline, and that to accomplish this, some businesses will move out of the city. But cities and downtown areas will still be very attractive in most places. In LR, there are satellite communities in virtually every direction. My employer, for example, faced fierce resistance to move to the west. A big problem was that although it would be more convenient for some employees, it would have been much less convenient for all those coming from the NE or SE (which is a lesser problem). Smaller employers will have more flexibility, at least until they need to find workers. It all equilibrates. But that doesn't change the underlying dynamics, it just makes the conclusions less harsh. After reading your analysis this would lead me to believe that until gas hits atleast $10 a gallon there is not going to be anylarge scale effects on daily life. though i would have to think that vacation travel would change dramatically. That's just my 2 cents. I also simplified a lot. For example: The definition and location of retail outlets may change as gas prices rise. At this point, I don't know whether a mail-order model or a ship-to-megaMart model or a small-neighborhood-store-model actually uses less fuel. But that's the cool thing about the free market, I don't have to know. As prices rise, certain models will lose out and others will take hold. My analysis, however, implicitly assumes that the basic structure of retail will either be unaffected or it will be cost-effective to increase centralization. At some cost level, this *may* cease to be the case, although I suspect it holds for quite large price increases. An empirical reason to believe this: centralization in retail is high in rural areas where transportation costs are already quite high, both in terms of time and fuel used. I.e., Wal-Marts in rural Americas draw from a large geographic area. What shoppers do is take fewer trips but buy more when they do shop. I think that phenomenon extrapolates. Although we may invent some entirely new mechanism, who knows. | ||||||
| 155 | biliruben ID: 33258140 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 14:15 |
Regardless, the only variable that is changing is the cost to travel, so we don't need to talk about how much people value their time, their yard space, or their safety. Those stay the same. I don't understand that. At least not here they don't. Time obviously changes. Yard space certainly changes. It's nearly unheard-of to get a larger than 5000 sq ft lot within 5 miles of downtown. Living in a condo in Belltown is much less safe than living in a suburb. These are all considerations that are not static with distance to downtown. Seattle is actually considerably more complex than I stated earlier. We are a city of hills and water. Hills and water. Some neighborhoods have breathtaking views of ocean or lake with snow-capped mountains behind. Some neighborhoods sit in dark valleys with stubborn flood problems (a woman drowned in her basement last year). These influence prices to a huge degree. Sometimes much more significantly than proximity to downtown. It makes every seller think their home is somehow unique, and makes comping homes a nearly impossible task. Also we have Microsoft, which chose to not locate in the urban core, but in Redmond. So Bellevue and Redmond have grown to be their own job centers. And we have Boeing, which obviously is also not in the urban core, but scattered about the Puget Sound, confounding prediction of the driving habits of thousands of Aeronautical Engineers. I assume that many cities near coasts have similar extenuating variables. | ||||||
| 156 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:30 |
Now the good news What you see here is a potential for an environmentally friendly extraction of shale for the first time: no surface problems, nothing on the surface, an underground refinery. That is a change not available in 1981. But it has to be done by way of creating from Shell's conception, under today's social and environmental standards, protection of water. So Shell is developing the technology of an ice wall around the action of heating the shale, and the ice wall that they're going to put up—they're doing it experimentally now—must contain liquids from going into groundwater and protect the thermal process from water intrusion. Los Alamosjoined the shale development technology just three months ago and signed an agreement with Chevron. Chevron is going to use another unique technology; it is going to approach the rock itself, rubbleize it by explosives, and then flush the kerogen out with a critical liquid, which is CO2. CO2 is utilized as another method to reduce greenhouse gases or global warming. These technologies are still in the development stages, but I still feel the moratorium should have been lifted this year. It's in my best interest, economically, for this to move forward, as I have sattelite operations in Vernal, Ut. and Grand Junction, Co., two cities that will be most affected growth-wise as the support infrastructure goes nuts. | ||||||
| 157 | Perm Dude ID: 125251210 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:35 | As I pointed out in #59, new extraction techniques for shale is affecting Pennsylvania too. Apparently the "Fort Worth technique" is actually opening up old drilling sites that had been thought to be tapped out. | ||||||
| 158 | Razor ID: 4532926 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:40 |
bili, I mean the value associated with those other various elements does not change.. That is, I might value my free time at $25/hr. Moving 20 miles closer to city center certainly will affect how much free time I have (more), but moving will not affect how much I value it. The other variables will play a role, however, as you note since keeping all else equal is next to impossible. Some people won't do a thing because they value their safety and their yard space. Some will be tipped towards paying more in rent/mortgage or getting a smaller home or moving to a more dangerous neighborhood. In other words, people will reprioritize. Granted, the simplest solution is to get a more efficient vehicle rather than moving altogether, but for some, moving is actually easier than changing cars. Renters, for example. But that's more of a mid-term solution. Long term, cities will compress. Not NYC, but places like LA and Atlanta that are big time commuter cities with room to shrink. | ||||||
| 159 | biliruben ID: 33258140 Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 16:16 |
Ah. Gotcha, Razor. I see what you are saying now. I think you are probably right that density will increase. It's being pushed very hard here by the Mayor and city counsel. Seattle is one of the very few cities I've ever been to where you can go only a mile or two out of the very heart of downtown, and find practically a suburban experience, with single-family homes with lawns. We are zoned multiple occupancy on only about 6% of our land, iirc. If you compare the City of Seattle's population with what it was in 1960, it is the essentially unchanged. The surrounding counties, however, have seen huge growth. So they are building condos downtown, which is fine, but they are also infilling on a massive scale the close in neighborhoods with the most hideous, poorly constructed townhouses you can imagine...   4 packs, they call-'em because the can jam 4 on a lot without any review. I've watched these go up, because they are next to where I often play tennis. They are built of 90% sawdust and formaldehyde, from what I can tell, and the regs force them to be so contorted that the garages are essentially unusable. Most won't last the length of the mortgage before they rot and fall down, is my guess. There's gotta be a better answer than that. | ||||||
| 160 | R9 Leader ID: 02624472 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 07:42 |
We're seeing a ton of that here in Montreal too bili. Condo towers are going up everywhere, from retirement homes to basic townhouses to middle and high class appartments. No complaints about the building quality though. It started a few years back when alot of the suburbs in the greater Montreal area merged with Mtl. A main goal of the new Mayor was to promote density over sprawl. Which I not only agree with, but support heavily. While the phenomenon wasn't neccessairily caused by high energy prices, that influence will surely help keep it going now. My only beef is with the lack of future foresight. Condo towers are going up all over the major arteries in the West Island suburbs, increasing density exponentially. The same roads that were traffic-clogged are now seeing 2x or even 3x the cars on them daily. Haven't any of these city engineers ever played Sim City? 2x population + no new roads = congestion... duh! ;) | ||||||
| 161 | Perm Dude ID: 54531139 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:35 |
Factcheck.org takes McCain to task for saying that the poor drive more than the wealthy. As an excuse for his "gas tax holiday" McCain has been relying on inside-the-beltway anectdotes instead of the facts, it appears. | ||||||
| 162 | boikin ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:40 | It is the wrong excuse, but the right idea. yes rich people drive more but if you look % of income that goes to gas the poorer you are the much worse off you are. The less money you have the more you are hurt by higher gas prices. | ||||||
| 163 | Perm Dude ID: 54531139 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:48 |
This is a good way to not lower the price of gas for those people (or anyone, for that matter). McCain shows he's out-of-touch by continuing to make the case for a proposal which doesn't lower any gas prices, but uses tax dollars to make it appear that is might. The "gas tax holiday" won't actually lower the price at the pump. Being paternalistic and pandering toward "the poor" and relying on anectdotes for a proposal which won't, in fact, do what it is intended seems to be a more traditional "liberal" way of doing things, won't you agree? | ||||||
| 164 | biliruben ID: 4911361723 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 11:10 |
 slideshow. | ||||||
| 165 | Madman ID: 230542010 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 11:49 |
McCain shows he's out-of-touch by continuing to make the case for a proposal which doesn't lower any gas prices, but uses tax dollars to make it appear that is might. It wouldn't lower gas prices if enacted immediately. However, if the federal government eliminated the tax every summer, it would lower prices. This issue has been used as an example of political stupidity. But I'm also not entirely sure that it doesn't reflect flaws in economics. For example, you may recall this issue being brought up a couple of years ago. Some prominent economists claimed that a state-level holiday couldn't have an impact. I presented evidence on DPS that, in fact, Georgia did this and the price did fall. They changed their minds. The national issue, in the long run, is analogous to the Georgia example. Further, since that time, I've wondered if there isn't something else missing from our thinking. For example, many other countries have a negative tax rate on gasoline, yet are afraid that if they remove that negative tax rate that the price to the end user will increase. Most, if not all, companies don't have rigorous theoretical demand models to set their prices. There's a large degree of estimation and guess work involved, and cost-plus pricing mechanisms. I haven't heard the institutional or behavioral economists weigh in much on the issue, and I'd be interested to hear what they say. Too much Econ 101 arrogance, in my opinion, and not enough really thinking through the issue. And evidence for that is the degree to which economists claim that McCain's proposal is "bad", which is a normative judgment. Economists should simply say that their best estimate is that prices won't fall much, if at all, with the remainder accruing to stockholders and pension plans and investors. Lastly, there would also be less money for highway funds. Although most people may not take that tradeoff, some would. | ||||||
| 166 | biliruben ID: 4911361723 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 11:56 |
Lastly, there would also be less money for highway funds. NPR quoted Obama as rebutting McCain with that argument. That was the only argument they mentioned that he used. | ||||||
| 167 | biliruben ID: 4911361723 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 12:05 |
No complaints about the building quality though. Yeah, R9, I'm not in construction, so I can't really give a knowledgeable assessment. I do know that the builders and developers have fought like mad in Olympia against regulation that would make them liable for shoddy construction. The typical process here is that they form an LLC, throw up 1, or 4 or 8 units (under the limit for full review), sell the units, and dissolve the LLC. Then repeat next-door. Then a year or 5 down the road leaks and mold are discovered because of shoddy construction, and the owner(s) has to spend 100s of thousands on remediation. In a place where it rains all the time, you better get your seals right, and you better not seal wet wood/sawdust inside the siding. These things happen routinely here, but anything slowing development and "greater density" with the resultant tax-dollars pouring into the coffers, gets no traction. | ||||||
| 168 | boikin ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 12:06 |
This is a good way to not lower the price of gas for those people (or anyone, for that matter). McCain shows he's out-of-touch by continuing to make the case for a proposal which doesn't lower any gas prices, but uses tax dollars to make it appear that is might. The "gas tax holiday" won't actually lower the price at the pump. Being paternalistic and pandering toward "the poor" and relying on anectdotes for a proposal which won't, in fact, do what it is intended seems to be a more traditional "liberal" way of doing things, won't you agree? i agree i was just pointing out the fact that saying he is wrong by showing that poor drive less emplies that the poor are not hurt by higher gas more than the rich, which i do not agree with. | ||||||
| 169 | Building 7 ID: 174591519 Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 23:01 |
Population (in billions) . Year.... Years elapsed 1................................. 1804......millions 2................................. 1927.......123 3................................. 1961.......34 4.................................1974........13 5.................................1987........12 6.................................1999........12 7.................................2011........13 In the last 40 years, the world population has doubled. It is now at 6.7 billion, adding another billion every 12 years. More people using more oil. Perhaps it's not that there is not enough oil, but that there are too many people wanting to use that oil. There's a bubble in people, if you were to chart it long-term. It would start rocketing upwards around 1960-1970. Less people would solve a lot of the world's problems. Water, food, and mineral shortages, the purported man-made global warming,etc. I suspect there are people working to solve this "problem" Not that I want to volunteer to leave, but just another way to lok at it. | ||||||
| 170 | Boldwin ID: 85241823 Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 02:02 | Considering that first world countries are often not even replacing their population [with the exception of immigration] and given that the moslem birthrate is far higher I think I can see where 'people working' are headed. Not a recommendation, merely an observation. | ||||||
| 171 | astade ID: 1533770 Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 02:17 |
Boldwin, I don't want to steer this thread in another direction but using the term 'moslem' is very unnecessary. If you want to make a point regarding population growth and oil demand, please do so. Being offensive at the same time is petty and denigrating for we both know that it is not a spelling that is appreciated by Muslims. | ||||||
| 172 | Boldwin ID: 85241823 Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 03:35 |
Both are actually acceptable AFAIK [that was the conclusion I reached researching right after 9/11]. No differant that Koran, Qu'ran, Qu'raan and AlQu'ran Different approaches and methods for the romanization of Arabic exist. They vary in the way that they address the inherent problems of rendering written and spoken Arabic in the Latin alphabet; they also use different symbols for Arabic phonemes that do not exist in English or other European languages.You are entirely off base if you thot I meant that spelling as an offense. Telling that you just leapt to that conclusion. People draw a lot of those false assumptions about me. If you research my posts using the tools Dave Hall provides you will see I usually use the other spelling and it was just a random decision to use this one this time. | ||||||
| 173 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 06:57 |
Boldwin, you know by now that the false accusation of bigotry is one of the liberals tools of last resort in any debate. What makes the spelling of the word muslim even more intriguing is that it fits the agenda of NewSpeak AND the scarlet letter of bigotry all at the same time. It's the liberal version of a BOGO (Buy One Get One Free) sale. | ||||||
| 174 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:41 |
What makes the spelling of the word muslim even more intriguing is that it fits the agenda of NewSpeak AND the scarlet letter of bigotry all at the same time. You don't know anything about astade's politics. He misunderstood Boldwin when he saw a spelling that he wasn't familiar with. B told him he was mistaken, I don't know why that shouldn't that be the end of it. For all either of us know he's a devoted conservative. This person whom you've never read a politics post from doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt that he simply wasn't familiar with the term and made an honest mistake? Take a step back from attack mode and realize how much your rabid behavior this morning (you basically opened up every active thread to call the liberals at this forum a bunch of @$$holes) actually resembles all the comments you've made. | ||||||
| 175 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:45 |
Astade I know you've been around the Rotoguru boards a long time, not sure how often you foray into politics section but hopefully you're thick skinned enough to weather the occassional (OK sometimes not so occassional) disparraging comment. Whatever your politics, this forum is always refreshed by new blood. | ||||||
| 176 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:52 |
You don't know anything about astade's politics. On that issue he is in alignment with you in the quest for NewSpeak and I'm glad Boldwin corrected him. Maybe Astade will change his mind and learn. | ||||||
| 177 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:53 |
you basically opened up every active thread to call the liberals.... You say they're liberals, Tree says they "lean left". Which one is right in your opinion and why? | ||||||
| 178 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:56 | I miss Toral. | ||||||
| 179 | Tree ID: 3533298 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 09:44 |
toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe. good lord. | ||||||
| 180 | boikin ID: 532592112 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 10:45 |
More people using more oil. Perhaps it's not that there is not enough oil, but that there are too many people wanting to use that oil. There's a bubble in people, if you were to chart it long-term. It would start rocketing upwards around 1960-1970. Less people would solve a lot of the world's problems. Water, food, and mineral shortages, the purported man-made global warming,etc. I suspect there are people working to solve this "problem" Not that I want to volunteer to leave, but just another way to lok at it. no one will ever except the true cause of the worlds problems | ||||||
| 181 | angryCHAIR ID: 561401810 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 13:21 | Man---Jag---your title of this thread and so many others are just flat out predictable and caustic! Nice job, Brownie! | ||||||
| 182 | Building 7 ID: 471052128 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 14:15 |
no one will ever except (accept?) the true cause of the worlds problems What is that Mr. boiken, and what does it have to do with my post? | ||||||
| 183 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 16:51 |
I miss Toral. I miss answers to questions instead of pointless drivel responses like yours. Do you fail to see the difference between the two terms? Then again, you do have problems with words that have double meanings. | ||||||
| 184 | Tree ID: 3533298 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 17:15 |
Do you fail to see the difference between the two terms? do you fail to see they came from two different people? | ||||||
| 185 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 17:56 |
Not at all. I am curious to see if Mith thought certain people are liberals or lean left. You never answered my question about your economic stance. It would give me a better framework for when we talk about the issues. | ||||||
| 186 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 18:14 |
Then why do you address me? Seriously, what have I done to incur your wrath today? Or every other day in recent memory? It was early or mid April when we agreed to a more respectful discourse. I don't believe I've prompted the erosion of that agreement. Honsetly, I don't believe you've authored a post today without insulting someone. Even the primary purpose of your Ann Coulter thread is to piss people off. You just paste her full column in there every week, no matter the topic, even when her positions are are contrary to your own, never with commentary of your own to add. On one recent occassion I offered a response to her column, citing rather blatent factual errors in arguments she used to support one of her greater claims. I then asked you if you really bought into what you had just presented but didn't answer that question. And you didn't bother to respond to the issues I rasied with her column. Instead you wrote (post 33). You called me a "native" (compared with you and Boldwin who are "missionaries") called me "the most lopsided poster here" called my post a "limp defense" of Barack Obama (in actuality I didn't mention or refer to Obama at all) characterized that alleged defense as "laughable" and said that it is "proof positive" (presumably of the claim that I am the most lopsided poster here). I really don't see why I'm among the group that gets accused of hostility lately. And I really don't know what to do about it. I'd like to contine posting here but I don't have the discipline to consistantly ignore hostile posts. In another thread this morning Boxman wrote "If some more (AZD is a superhero.) join up here we can push them back and do to them what Reagan said of communism." So you've made it clear in no uncertain terms that what you'd really like is to drive the liberals/leftists (in answer to your question, at this forum, as is often the case but not always, most of the leftists here also happen to be liberals) from th eboard all together. Which interestingly is exactly the thing that Baldwin accuses 'liberals' here of doing to conservatives. If that's your goal and you are devoted enough to the tactic of destroying every discussion by lobbing insult after I just don't see the point in hanging around any more. I won't deny that I've regrettably resorted to ad hominem from time to time as well or that enough other posters on either side are guilty of the same behaviour as Boxman's. But the additions of Boxman and Jag to this forum and in particular, this recent tirade Boxman has set himself on, have tipped the balance far from respectful discussion to an all out insult-fest. So congratulations, Boxman. Cross one liberal and leftist off your list of people to drive off the forum. You're that much closer to you own stated goal. I tend toward doubt that azdbacker will answer your call to crusade. While I disagree with his opinions, I appreciated his openness to respectful discussion and regret that I won't get the chance to engage him on the issues here. Hopefully he won't mid my posting an occassional dissenting opinion at his blog. If anyone needs to contact me for fantasy sports or other purposes, there's my email. I don't think you'll see me post in the politics forum anymore. I'm sure the other "conservatives" on the board will congratulate you your triumph. | ||||||
| 187 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 18:19 | You were an ass to me from day one. Good riddance. | ||||||
| 188 | angryCHAIR ID: 561401810 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 19:03 |
MITH---Don't do it! Let Hannity, I mean Boxman, spout his venom! Don't mean NOTHIN'! | ||||||
| 189 | Tree ID: 515122019 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 20:31 |
you really feel that way Boxman? you really relish the loss of one of the better posters here because you were on the rag today? damned shame, but not surprising you feel that way. says a lot about you as a person. | ||||||
| 190 | J-Bar ID: 235171912 Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 22:20 | I don't like to see anyone leave, give up, or just be done with it. BUT i have been the brunt of numerous attacks in which i was discussing the issues and have left for periods of time because the need for people to hit those softballs, because they either misread or misinterpreted what i was saying or didn't care to try, was so great. and those attacks were praised and lauded. | ||||||
| 191 | Pancho Villa ID: 47161721 Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 09:45 |
Here is an example, according to Jag, of a friend to terrorists Colorado's renewable energy standards - along with "net metering" requirements that mean homeowners who install renewable energy systems can essentially sell to the utility any excess power they produce at retail rates - have proven to be a powerful driver of the market. To help meet its targets, Xcel Energy offers generous rebates of $4.50 a watt to homeowners who install solar panels. Make no mistake, solar is still a substantial investment with a long pay-back period. In our case, the rebate paid for about 55 percent of our 4.3 kilowatt system, and the federal tax credit cut the cost by another $2,000. But our net cost was still about $13,000. We regard that not so much as a way to cut our electric bills as an investment in the world our children will inherit and a personal contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Tom Kenworthy should receive nothing but praise for his committment to renewable energy, and Colorado should be praised for providing incentives that ease, at least somewhat, the financial burden associated with the committment. Jag, don't you feel the least bit silly for calling Tom a friend of terrorists. | ||||||
| 192 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 10:01 |
Tom Kenworthy should receive nothing but praise for his committment to renewable energy, and Colorado should be praised for providing incentives that ease, at least somewhat, the financial burden associated with the committment. I am a huge proponent of net metering and I totally agree with you about praising Colorado for giving ample incentives to spur the actual implementation of renewable energy. | ||||||
| 193 | Jag ID: 28457122 Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 10:21 |
PV, I have new job that requires a lot of hours, so I don't have the time to research a decent reply. To the enjoyment of many, I will not be posting much anymore. I hope Mith returns, he is an excellent poster and works hard on his details. I look forward to reading the Right-Left battles. Most of my posts and titles were meant to be semi-tongue in cheek, altough at times there was some anger, mostly I was just having fun. I don't want to give you guys a big head, but you have some of the best political pundits on the web and while I may not have been worthy, it was fun having a go at you. | ||||||
| 194 | Tree ID: 23143812 Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 16:03 |
not really sure where this goes, but its newsworthy... Hummer to close after collapse of Chinese deal | ||||||
| 195 | Biliruben movin ID: 358252515 Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 16:31 |
Coikydink. Just reading the dead suv thread last night. Fuh2 not as popular these days. | ||||||
| 196 | Boldwin ID: 111562213 Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 03:11 | Wierd, my wife and I say coinkydink all the time. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: | ||||||||