The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in
message ...

Meanwhile, asking people to grow up and
take responsibility for their actions is free, and will actually
work,
starting immediately.

So you're going to tell a single mom making $8 an hour that they
need to
trade in their 1983 Electra for a $22,000 Accord? How is that
"free"?

Are you resistant to the idea of voluntary
behavioral changes?

Nothing that involves government is voluntary. Government is by
definition
coercion ("you must") or proscription ("you can't"). That you do
not
understand this most basic concept explains the inanity of most of
your
posts.


I never said anything about telling anyone to trade in their car
immediately. I'm talking about upcoming purchases. And, there is
nothing coercive about a president using his TV time to ask people to
rethink their habits.

Does this qualify?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/27/business/gas.php


It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different car
is venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't think of
any other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos or
crotches than automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real president
with balls to touch the subject. The message would be somewhat
insulting, but sometimes, people need a bucket of cold water dumped on
their heads.

This is from the above link. Sounds like he did ask us to cut back, not
only to buy more efficient vehicles

He added that if Americans could avoid going on "a trip that's not
essential," that would be "helpful."

He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own
energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.


Not far enough. Sorry. I understand I may be insulting one of your icons,
but that's just the way it goes.

He's not one of my icons. I don't agree with many of the things he has
and has not done. But you said he should say something....he already has.


In order for this to be done right, it would require a real president, as I
stated earlier. We do not have that at this moment. Someone like Mario Cuomo
would be an example of someone real. Someone who can function without a
script.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed
about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in
the
USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per gallon
compared to the rest of the world. Conservation was preached,
encouraged
and some even advocated raising the price of gas to force further
conservation and the use of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to
reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming
big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for the
natural
increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a
real
president with some balls said the following during one of his TV
appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never find
solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And, at some
point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions, and
volunteer
to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next time you're ready
to
buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real needs. Stop thinking
that
the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're
being
told in the commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you
have
a family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your
needs
equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they were
safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other trucks?
Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire
time
you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have to
go
out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your gas
usage
by 30%, just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create laws to
change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do about what oil
companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of having a significant
impact on how much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If
they
continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their problem, not
yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick a
better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.


Maybe. But let's face it: It's true. The only way to deny it is to give
many consumers a pass by saying they were brainwashed by advertising,
which is pretty powerful stuff.


Here you go again trying to dictate what consumers can purchase.

Regarding the advertising, the Big 3 have knocked off attacking each other
and are focusing on "buy American". The problem is that buying American may
mean buying a Toyota and not a Cadillac. It is now a global economy and one
can no longer be assured that the GM, Ford or Chrysler product is
manufactured in the US or that the majority of components are US made.

The Big 3 deserves what is happening to them. Lack of foresight, management
giving the unions whatever they wanted and executives receiving outrageous
salaries/bonus's/incentives have led to their demise. One example is the
new Ford CEO, Alan Mulally (hired on September, 2006 taking over after Bill
Ford Jr resigned) taking in $39 million in salary, stock options and bonus
money for those 4 months. This was after Ford had a net loss of almost $13
billion in 2006.

They continue to dig their own grave.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in
message ...

Meanwhile, asking people to grow up and
take responsibility for their actions is free, and will actually
work,
starting immediately.

So you're going to tell a single mom making $8 an hour that they
need to
trade in their 1983 Electra for a $22,000 Accord? How is that
"free"?

Are you resistant to the idea of voluntary
behavioral changes?

Nothing that involves government is voluntary. Government is by
definition
coercion ("you must") or proscription ("you can't"). That you do
not
understand this most basic concept explains the inanity of most of
your
posts.


I never said anything about telling anyone to trade in their car
immediately. I'm talking about upcoming purchases. And, there is
nothing coercive about a president using his TV time to ask people
to rethink their habits.

Does this qualify?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/27/business/gas.php


It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different
car is venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't
think of any other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos
or crotches than automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real
president with balls to touch the subject. The message would be
somewhat insulting, but sometimes, people need a bucket of cold water
dumped on their heads.

This is from the above link. Sounds like he did ask us to cut back,
not only to buy more efficient vehicles

He added that if Americans could avoid going on "a trip that's not
essential," that would be "helpful."

He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own
energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.


Not far enough. Sorry. I understand I may be insulting one of your
icons, but that's just the way it goes.

He's not one of my icons. I don't agree with many of the things he has
and has not done. But you said he should say something....he already has.


In order for this to be done right, it would require a real president, as
I stated earlier. We do not have that at this moment. Someone like Mario
Cuomo would be an example of someone real. Someone who can function
without a script.


"Just Say No to Drugs" worked great! Eh?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in
message ...

Meanwhile, asking people to grow up and
take responsibility for their actions is free, and will actually
work,
starting immediately.

So you're going to tell a single mom making $8 an hour that they
need to
trade in their 1983 Electra for a $22,000 Accord? How is that
"free"?

Are you resistant to the idea of voluntary
behavioral changes?

Nothing that involves government is voluntary. Government is by
definition
coercion ("you must") or proscription ("you can't"). That you do
not
understand this most basic concept explains the inanity of most of
your
posts.


I never said anything about telling anyone to trade in their car
immediately. I'm talking about upcoming purchases. And, there is
nothing coercive about a president using his TV time to ask people
to rethink their habits.

Does this qualify?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/27/business/gas.php


It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different
car is venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't
think of any other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos
or crotches than automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real
president with balls to touch the subject. The message would be
somewhat insulting, but sometimes, people need a bucket of cold water
dumped on their heads.

This is from the above link. Sounds like he did ask us to cut back,
not only to buy more efficient vehicles

He added that if Americans could avoid going on "a trip that's not
essential," that would be "helpful."

He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own
energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.


Not far enough. Sorry. I understand I may be insulting one of your
icons, but that's just the way it goes.

He's not one of my icons. I don't agree with many of the things he has
and has not done. But you said he should say something....he already
has.


In order for this to be done right, it would require a real president, as
I stated earlier. We do not have that at this moment. Someone like Mario
Cuomo would be an example of someone real. Someone who can function
without a script.


"Just Say No to Drugs" worked great! Eh?


And that was a response to what in particular, assuming you can still
remember why you typed it?

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed
about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in
the
USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per gallon
compared to the rest of the world. Conservation was preached,
encouraged
and some even advocated raising the price of gas to force further
conservation and the use of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to
reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming
big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for the
natural
increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a
real
president with some balls said the following during one of his TV
appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never find
solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And, at some
point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions, and
volunteer
to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next time you're ready
to
buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real needs. Stop thinking
that
the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're
being
told in the commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you
have
a family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your
needs
equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they were
safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other trucks?
Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire
time
you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have to
go
out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your gas
usage
by 30%, just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a
mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create laws to
change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do about what oil
companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of having a significant
impact on how much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If
they
continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their problem,
not
yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick a
better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.


Maybe. But let's face it: It's true. The only way to deny it is to give
many consumers a pass by saying they were brainwashed by advertising,
which is pretty powerful stuff.


Here you go again trying to dictate what consumers can purchase.


Once again, I said nothing of the sort. But, as I wrote the original
message, I wondered if you or someone like you would come along and claim
something was being "dictated". You're very predictable.

You wreck 3 right rear tires in a month. Your mechanic says "You really
should stop grinding them against the curb when you park". Is he dictating?



Everything below is irrelevant to what I said in the original message.

Regarding the advertising, the Big 3 have knocked off attacking each other
and are focusing on "buy American". The problem is that buying American
may mean buying a Toyota and not a Cadillac. It is now a global economy
and one can no longer be assured that the GM, Ford or Chrysler product is
manufactured in the US or that the majority of components are US made.

The Big 3 deserves what is happening to them. Lack of foresight,
management giving the unions whatever they wanted and executives receiving
outrageous salaries/bonus's/incentives have led to their demise. One
example is the new Ford CEO, Alan Mulally (hired on September, 2006 taking
over after Bill Ford Jr resigned) taking in $39 million in salary, stock
options and bonus money for those 4 months. This was after Ford had a net
loss of almost $13 billion in 2006.

They continue to dig their own grave.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

wrote in message
...
On 08 May 2007 18:03:20 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:


All the more reason to storm the statehouse. And then open ANWR :-).

Opening ANWR is projected to reduce the net share of foreign oil used
by U.S. consumers in 2020 from 62 to 60 percent. That is very little
benefit for unnecessarily risking a valuable tourism resource.

A tourism resource???????????

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different car is
venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't think of any
other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos or crotches than
automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real president with balls to
touch the subject. The message would be somewhat insulting, but sometimes,
people need a bucket of cold water dumped on their heads.


Have no fear. The concept of supply and demand in a free market will do all
the policing required. At some price people will take drastic action and
demand will fall quickly. The oil companies and others involved still have
to sell product to sustain growth while covering costs.
Prices will drop.

Eisboch

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different car
is venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't think of
any other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos or crotches
than automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real president with balls
to touch the subject. The message would be somewhat insulting, but
sometimes, people need a bucket of cold water dumped on their heads.


Have no fear. The concept of supply and demand in a free market will do
all the policing required. At some price people will take drastic action
and demand will fall quickly. The oil companies and others involved still
have to sell product to sustain growth while covering costs.
Prices will drop.

Eisboch


I'm not so sure about that. A lot of people think that if they can afford
expensive gasoline, it means there's no problem. They don't think outside of
their own situation. Someone needs to impress upon them (through
suggestions, not laws) that "there's a world outside of you". The prevalence
of certain types of vehicles is proof that this message hasn't gotten
through yet.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed
about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in
the
USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per
gallon
compared to the rest of the world. Conservation was preached,
encouraged
and some even advocated raising the price of gas to force further
conservation and the use of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order
to
reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming
big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for the
natural
increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a
real
president with some balls said the following during one of his TV
appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never find
solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And, at
some
point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions, and
volunteer
to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next time you're
ready to
buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real needs. Stop thinking
that
the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're
being
told in the commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you
have
a family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your
needs
equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they were
safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other trucks?
Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire
time
you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have
to go
out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your gas
usage
by 30%, just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a
mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create laws
to
change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do about what oil
companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of having a
significant
impact on how much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If
they
continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their problem,
not
yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick
a
better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.


Maybe. But let's face it: It's true. The only way to deny it is to give
many consumers a pass by saying they were brainwashed by advertising,
which is pretty powerful stuff.


Here you go again trying to dictate what consumers can purchase.


Once again, I said nothing of the sort. But, as I wrote the original
message, I wondered if you or someone like you would come along and claim
something was being "dictated".


Nice spin. No cigar though.




Everything below is irrelevant to what I said in the original message.



Not really........you brought up the auto advertising.



Regarding the advertising, the Big 3 have knocked off attacking each
other and are focusing on "buy American". The problem is that buying
American may mean buying a Toyota and not a Cadillac. It is now a global
economy and one can no longer be assured that the GM, Ford or Chrysler
product is manufactured in the US or that the majority of components are
US made.

The Big 3 deserves what is happening to them. Lack of foresight,
management giving the unions whatever they wanted and executives
receiving outrageous salaries/bonus's/incentives have led to their
demise. One example is the new Ford CEO, Alan Mulally (hired on
September, 2006 taking over after Bill Ford Jr resigned) taking in $39
million in salary, stock options and bonus money for those 4 months.
This was after Ford had a net loss of almost $13 billion in 2006.

They continue to dig their own grave.

The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed
about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in
the
USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per
gallon
compared to the rest of the world. Conservation was preached,
encouraged
and some even advocated raising the price of gas to force further
conservation and the use of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order
to
reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming
big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for the
natural
increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a
real
president with some balls said the following during one of his TV
appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find
solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And, at
some
point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions, and
volunteer
to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next time you're
ready to
buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real needs. Stop thinking
that
the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap
you're being
told in the commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that
you have
a family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit
your needs
equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they
were
safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other
trucks? Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire
time
you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have
to go
out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your
gas usage
by 30%, just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a
mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create laws
to
change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do about what
oil
companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of having a
significant
impact on how much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If
they
continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their problem,
not
yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick
a
better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.


Maybe. But let's face it: It's true. The only way to deny it is to give
many consumers a pass by saying they were brainwashed by advertising,
which is pretty powerful stuff.


Here you go again trying to dictate what consumers can purchase.


Once again, I said nothing of the sort. But, as I wrote the original
message, I wondered if you or someone like you would come along and claim
something was being "dictated".


Nice spin. No cigar though.


No spin. I remembered that you or one of your clones had the same reaction
in the past. It went even further - some bull**** about "too much government
from the left". During WWII, do you think FDR talked to the nation about
having to make certain sacrifices? Was it viewed as dictating, or asking for
participation?