"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.

"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

"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.

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.

"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.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:28:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


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.

What was or is "artificial" about US gasoline prices compared to the
rest of the world? Our prices, absent taxes, have always been about
the same as everyone elses as far as I know. The only reason we were
paying $1 per gallon while Europe was paying the equivalent of $5 per
gallon was the $4 in extra taxes that they were paying - either as
direct gasoline/energy taxes or the extra income and VAT tax burden on
the refiners and sellers that were reflected into the base fuel
prices. Theirs was and is the "artificial" price.


Dave hall

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

"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.

"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.

"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


Interestingly the Highway Trust Fund is losing $ billions because of more
fuel efficient vehicles and folks changing their driving habits.

"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.