Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:23:44 -0500, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush, saying he was unaware of
predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told
reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off
high
prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.

...

Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this
spring, due to strong demand and a change in formulation, among
other reasons.

When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the
reporter, *"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."*
Strong demand. What a crock of ****. Last spring, it was "on fears
of
renewed violence in Baghdad". Prices are effected by events in a
country from which we get pretty much zero oil?

Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as
a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?
Political blame for US election advantage.

The sad thing is that Bush leaves office as soon as the next President
is sworn in on 1/20/09. Why is everyone running against Bush?


The sad thing? There will be dancing in the streets when the IDIOT
heads
back to Crawford, or wherever he plans to go to take up his video
games,
booze, coke, and drunken driving.

Oh...it is the *failed* Bush-GOP policies against which the Dems will
run. Got it?
Harry, does your mother know you're telling lies about her?

You're still past tense.
--
John H


Back to bringing families into the foolishness here eh Johnny?
Time for an extended Goofy cruise..... from now until May would just
about do it.
Did you lazy son drink all of your beer again?


Speaking of idiots...........



I don't have a lazy son laying around my house, watching my TV, eating
my food and drinking my beer.

On Mar 1, 9:46*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL"
buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks
before the November elections.

Sure he is Harry. *Sure he is.

The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians,
current or past.
The blame resides with us.

Eisboch

I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair,
that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting
on big oil boards.

Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really
wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is
priced by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically)
could somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have
to buy crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy.

"Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't
have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees?

Is that why we never see much of Cheney? *Is he too busy attending OPEC
committee meetings, encouraging them to increase the price of oil?

Eisboch

Big government does like higher oil prices, bigger tax revenue when indexed
on the price as a percentage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No kidding!

Here a few years ago when pump gas jumped from about 1.35 to 2.35,
Gov. George Ryan put a stay on sales tax (6.25%) per gallon, andheld
it for about 6 mo. Does'n't sound like much, but when you consider the
big pic. it was a pretty good discount. Now comes our present
governor. Price jmps over the $3.00 mark and people were saying "Hey
guv. How about doing something with this gas sales tax?" The answer?
"Nah, we're leaving it on this time because we're broke!"

Errrr. OK so now the state is pulling in 6.75% per gal. on pump gas,
and the state has more money flowing in from motor fuels tax revenues
then they'd ever seen before. HUGE amounts! Like double what it was 10
years ago.

The gov. still says we're broke.

yeah.... r-r-r-r-ight!

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:09:02 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL"
buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks
before the November elections.
Sure he is Harry. Sure he is.

The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current
or past.
The blame resides with us.

Eisboch
I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair,
that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting
on big oil boards.
How will that affect the price of a barrel of oil here? Or in Japan?
or in China? or in Sweden? or in Great Britain? or in Germany? or
Italy?

Eisboch
Oversight and pressure, and the excess profits tax could be used to help
non-profit entities unaffiliated with big oil develop alternative energy
sources.

Wistful thinking. Despite your protests, industry drives innovation and
technical development, not "non-profit" centers staffed with lifelong
members of academia making a living on government grants. I've been
exposed to both for many, many years.
Industry is what makes things happen and imposing more taxes on it simply
slows things down.

Eisboch




I see no reason to trust Big Oil, and I wasn't suggesting academia.

Harry, your original comment was pure, liberal, anti-Bush, stupid. But, it
did get Eisboch talking to you again, to tell you so. Therefore, it must
have been worthwhile.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:02:18 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL"
buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks
before the November elections.

Sure he is Harry. Sure he is.

The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current
or past.
The blame resides with us.

Eisboch

I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that
and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big
oil boards.


Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really
wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is priced
by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically) could
somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have to buy
crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy.




"Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't
have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees?

More of your stupid, liberal, anti-Bush ****.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL"
buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks
before the November elections.
Sure he is Harry. Sure he is.

The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians,
current or past.
The blame resides with us.

Eisboch
I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair,
that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting
on big oil boards.

Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really
wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is
priced by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically)
could somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have
to buy crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy.

"Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't
have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees?
Is that why we never see much of Cheney? Is he too busy attending OPEC
committee meetings, encouraging them to increase the price of oil?

Eisboch

Speaking of that...do you still have a vice president down there? We never
hear of him up this way.




He's in a halfway house, hopefully on his way to a "fullway" house. :)

"BAR" wrote in message
news
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:23:44 -0500, HK wrote:

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush, saying he was unaware
of
predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told
reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off
high
prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent.

...

Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this
spring, due to strong demand and a change in formulation, among
other reasons.

When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the
reporter, *"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."*
Strong demand. What a crock of ****. Last spring, it was "on fears
of
renewed violence in Baghdad". Prices are effected by events in a
country from which we get pretty much zero oil?

Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived
as
a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause?
Political blame for US election advantage.

The sad thing is that Bush leaves office as soon as the next
President
is sworn in on 1/20/09. Why is everyone running against Bush?


The sad thing? There will be dancing in the streets when the IDIOT
heads
back to Crawford, or wherever he plans to go to take up his video
games,
booze, coke, and drunken driving.

Oh...it is the *failed* Bush-GOP policies against which the Dems will
run. Got it?
Harry, does your mother know you're telling lies about her?

You're still past tense.
--
John H


Back to bringing families into the foolishness here eh Johnny?
Time for an extended Goofy cruise..... from now until May would just
about do it.
Did you lazy son drink all of your beer again?


Speaking of idiots...........

I don't have a lazy son laying around my house, watching my TV, eating my
food and drinking my beer.


Well.. believe it or not, looks like we have something in common.
The only thing my son does on your list is .. he eats most of his meals
here...... but since he pays 'room & board', I assume this is acceptable to
you?

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:09:02 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL"
buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks
before the November elections.
Sure he is Harry. Sure he is.

The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current
or past.
The blame resides with us.

Eisboch
I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair,
that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting
on big oil boards.
How will that affect the price of a barrel of oil here? Or in Japan?
or in China? or in Sweden? or in Great Britain? or in Germany? or
Italy?

Eisboch
Oversight and pressure, and the excess profits tax could be used to help
non-profit entities unaffiliated with big oil develop alternative energy
sources.
Wistful thinking. Despite your protests, industry drives innovation and
technical development, not "non-profit" centers staffed with lifelong
members of academia making a living on government grants. I've been
exposed to both for many, many years.
Industry is what makes things happen and imposing more taxes on it simply
slows things down.

Eisboch



I see no reason to trust Big Oil, and I wasn't suggesting academia.

Harry, your original comment was pure, liberal, anti-Bush, stupid. But, it
did get Eisboch talking to you again, to tell you so. Therefore, it must
have been worthwhile.


You don't really think I give a damn about what your three crosswired
synapses produce, do you?

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:17:15 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:43:56 -0500, Eisboch penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


Nuclear power is the answer. Clean, safe and has been the center of our
solar system and of the universe for that matter, for billions of years.

That sounds more like an endorsement for solar power. Leave the
reactor on the sun where it belongs!

Luddite.

And I mean that in a most positive way.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 17:43:56 -0500, Eisboch penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


Nuclear power is the answer. Clean, safe and has been the center of our
solar system and of the universe for that matter, for billions of years.



That sounds more like an endorsement for solar power. Leave the
reactor on the sun where it belongs!



Wind and solar power are nice to dream about but unless you want to
radically change the way we live, (meaning going back to the early 1900's)
they simply are not practical yet, nor will they be for quite a while when
you compare them to nuclear generated power.

The largest wind generator (as of 2005) is an off-shore monster that
generates 5 mega watts of power.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Worlds-Largest...-Generator.htm

The US currently has 104 operating nuclear plants that combined produce
almost 100,000 mega watts.
It would take about 20,000 of the wind monsters to equal that. Where are
they going to be situated?

Solar, although getting better, is still less efficient than wind.

Eisboch

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:19:55 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I didn't look at the links, but that is solvable with citing and
engineering refinements. When they installed a test farm here in the
mountains of NC, the low frequency created by the airfoils drove
people nuts.... even miles away and in the privacy of their home. I
think we have enough data, now, to design around such considerations.

You can cite them all you want, but I think a better option might be
siting - heh, heh,heh...

There are options other than nukes - I agree. And I think that solar
is one good option. I also think that wind is another option.
Geothermal is an option as is gravity generation (wave generators).

Having said that, you will still need capacity for back up and clean
coal plants cost as much, from an engineering/siting standpoint, as a
nuke which has more capacity and is more efficient.