Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added

Don White wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to the
oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.
This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!

So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?

I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added
Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to the
oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?

No, I don't advocate reducing our oil consumption. I am an advocate for
building nuclear plants all over the US and storing the waste in the
facility built in Nevada. I also advocate poking holes in the earth any
where there may be oil and pumping every last bit out and using it.

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Don White wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7


$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil
prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per
month at market price and anything over that should have a stiff
'luxury' tax added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to
the oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?


No, I don't advocate reducing our oil consumption. I am an advocate for
building nuclear plants all over the US and storing the waste in the
facility built in Nevada. I also advocate poking holes in the earth any
where there may be oil and pumping every last bit out and using it.


Yeah...and screw our kids & grandkids who'll be shortshifted behind us.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!



Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.




You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.


This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!



So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?



I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per
month at market price and anything over that should have a stiff
'luxury' tax added


Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?


It will be if you don't stop swilling it.