Boycot Fuel Week!!

"Lawson" wrote

IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving tax
breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it rise to
$10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard mistress, it
leads us to make poor choices and then justify them

Good way to have the economy to go tits up, immediately.

In case you didn't get the memo, there are people that have to burn gas.
People that haul construction equipment to build that house you live in.
People that haul food to the processor, to the distributors, and to the
grocery store. People that transport the computer that you bought and are
now using, and even before that, from raw material, to microchip, to
assembly, to transport it to the store you bought it from; it takes fuel to
make things and transport them.

I suppose you will not going to visit your relatives, that no longer live in
the same area that you now live in, as that would use more fuel, too.
Better plan on staying at home, and sitting in a cold dark room, (or a hot
dark room this summer) and not going out to eat, or to see a movie or a
play, either. That would be burning fuel that is not necessary. Forget
about eating meat more than perhaps once a week, because raising meat burns
a lot of fuel. Forget about sending the kids to college, because once you
have to pay for fuel at 3 or 4 times the cost, and increases in EVERY thing
that you buy, and your pay does not go up enough to reflect that amount of
increases in your budget, you will not be able to afford the tuition, or
room and board.

No, increasing fuel to many times its present cost is not the answer.
Everything we do depends on fuel, and if we suddenly don't have it, or can
not afford it, the way you have become accustomed to living will disappear
almost overnight.

I'm not saying that wasting fuel is a good thing, and that some changes
don't need to be made. I am saying that raising fuel prices many time
present cost is not the way to force conservation, unless you want to live
in a bankrupt economy. Prices as they are now, may have already sent forces
in action that will cause the economy to come crashing down on our heads.
It may be too late, already, to save ourselves from a deep recession.

So what do you say, Lawson? All that sound good to you? Or did you not
think that far ahead, yet?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Good way to have the economy to go tits up, immediately.

In case you didn't get the memo, there are people that have to burn gas.
People that haul construction equipment to build that house you live in.
People that haul food to the processor, to the distributors, and to the
grocery store. People that transport the computer that you bought and are
now using, and even before that, from raw material, to microchip, to
assembly, to transport it to the store you bought it from; it takes fuel
to make things and transport them.

in a bankrupt economy. Prices as they are now, may have already sent
forces in action that will cause the economy to come crashing down on our
heads. It may be too late, already, to save ourselves from a deep
recession.

So what do you say, Lawson? All that sound good to you? Or did you not
think that far ahead, yet?
--
Jim in NC

Wow, anger and denial! I'm not surprised and I don't nescessarily disagree
with you. But as you say yourself, it may already be too late. The problem
is that you and every other one of us want to deny the problem. If we forced
the price of fuel up to realistic levels the economy could adjust. New
technologies could emerge. If we wait until we have plunged off the cliff to
act the pain will be deeper and longer. So yes, in answer to your question.
I have thought that far forward and yes that all sounds pretty good to me
when weighed against the alternatives.

Fortunately Jim, almost eveyone thinks like you. So I will be able to
continue in my job, burning thousands of dollars worth of fuel every year to
make trips I probably could avoid to continue business as my employer sees
fit. I'm too old to serve in the military again, so I won't have to fight
for the oil. But our children, your children included are so screwed by our
inaction. I guess that's OK with you? Or didn't you think that far ahead? We
don't think, we don't plan. I already said we would happily burn down the
forest to raise the value of lumber, high profit now, none in the future.

You see the way I figure it, planning into the next quarter is pretty
short-sighted. Since we're thinking about the future of our species, maybe
we could plan a little farther out.

But this is all my opinion, maybe you have a better plan? I 'm guessing you
don't and you're afraid of change so you'll just let the world fall apart
around you. Don't worry you've got millions of people for company. Of course
you'll have to compete with them for the remaining food and fuel, but that's
a worry for another day, right?

On 2008-04-12, Lawson wrote:
So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.

Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still gets
27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets done.

Wasteful but OK with it because others are worse, are you looking for my
approval? Why would you care what I think?

I don't *care* what you think. You have no right to try to tell me whether
or not you approve of what I drive. I'm going to live my life without input
from enviro-wacko busybodies who think they know my needs better than I do.

How do I know what others are doing?? How do I know?? Jay my boy, look
around at the number of huge trucks modified with gigantic tires and othe
devices to make them burn more fuel speeding down the road with one
occupant. Look at the number of once somewhat economical cars that have been
modded to be noisier and less efficient for the sake of image trying to pas
those trucks. BTW, I'm sure all those vehicles meet their occupant's mission
statement.

If they do, neiher you nor I have any right to approve or disapprove.

IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving tax
breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it rise to
$10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard mistress, it leads
us to make poor choices and then justify them

That's the European solution. It would totally wreck our economy. Of course,
if we had no economic activity, we wouldn't be doing anything to te
environment - which is just what the enviro-wackos want: protect the
environment, and damn the human cost.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On 2008-04-12, Lawson wrote:
If we forced the price of fuel up to realistic levels

There's nothing realistic about a price that heavily distorted by artificial
taxation, which is what you advocated. That is, of course, the standard
enviro-wacko ploy: adding on "real costs" that are mere paper fictions in
order to coerce everyone into their utopia.

the economy could adjust.

Dead economies don't adjust to anything.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

" the economy could adjust.

Dead economies don't adjust to anything.

Amen.

Just remember, that if you are talking to anyone younger than30 years old,
they have never lived through a real recession.

Just to remind me, what was the cause of the last recession?

Oh, that's right, fuel costs.

I'm afraid we are in for a bumpy ride!
--
Jim in NC

Lawson wrote:
And it doesn't occur to you that the law YOU want gov't to pass is far more
restrictive and punituive than anything else they have ever proposed. YOU
are advocating gov't sponsored MURDER (lack of life saving medical treatment
readily available) for the simple act of not acting wisely.

Well, thats certainly an interesting spin. I look at it as re-enforcing
natural selection. If you are too dumb to attempt at least a modicum of
self-preservation, then the least you could do for the rest of us is
to remove yourself from the gene pool.

MY freedom is my ability to disagree with your stupid and self absorbed
point of view, and your freedom is to disagree with mine.

Yup. We both have our freedom to disagree. At least I can be civil about
it.

What you are
proposing is to allow the state to decide who lives and who dies, frankly
I've never met a bureaucrat I would trust with that choice.

Its not a bureaucratic decision. Its the individuals decision. They have
the choice to wear a helment or not. If they choose not to, great, but
then they ought to be responsible for that choice. Society should not
be burdened by people who have turned themselfs into vegetables by doing
purposely dumb things.

And for what its worth, I'm done with this discussion. I'm way over my
limit of off topic posts today.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

In article ,
"Lawson" wrote:

I've got an idea,
lets try doing something smart instead of something simple and profitable.

which it is? do something smart or tax people into the poor house?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-12, Lawson wrote:
So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.

Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still
gets
27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets done.

I've been to Minnesota Jay, it's only snowy a small percentage of the time.
You're justifying your choices, I never asked you to. You cannot earn my
approval and I sincerely hope you don't want to.

Wasteful but OK with it because others are worse, are you looking for my
approval? Why would you care what I think?

I don't *care* what you think. You have no right to try to tell me whether
or not you approve of what I drive. I'm going to live my life without
input
from enviro-wacko busybodies who think they know my needs better than I
do.


I have every right to think what I want about you Jay, and I will thanks. I
also have every right to tell you so should I choose to do so. You have a
pretty distorted idea of what freedom represents. I am quite glad to hear
that you don't care, you shouldn't. I am probably not an environmental
whacko but it sounds appealing, I guarantee you that I burn more fuel than
you do. The difference is that I don't deny that it's a pretty poor idea and
I think we should do better. I think we are destroying our future and
denying it all the way to the grave. The difference between us is that I
know it's bad, I say it's bad, and I make no attempt to justify it. I'm
aiming to stop, almost everything I do every day is one step closer to
living a better, simpler, less wasteful life. I moved to a smaller more
efficient aircraft, to try to help. It's not a need, it's an expensive,
wasteful indulgence and I should probably not do it. It doesn't hurt one bit
to admit it and one day I'll have to quit, as will we all.

I don't know what your needs are, and I don't think you do. Most of the
people I've met cannot determine what is a NEED against what it is that they
want, you yourself put your desires ahead of your needs when you claimed you
would do what you WANTED to. Didn't you know?

Yes I've heard the republicans claim that any change in how we do things
would sink the economy in a heartbeat, but I'm not quite stupid enough to
overlook the fact that they've managed to do it anyway all the while salting
millions of dollars away for themselves and their friends. I've got an idea,
lets try doing something smart instead of something simple and profitable.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
MY freedom is my ability to disagree with your stupid and self absorbed
point of view, and your freedom is to disagree with mine.

Yup. We both have our freedom to disagree. At least I can be civil about
it.


Difference of opinion extends to what constitutes civility I guess. Failing
to deliver life saving medical attention because you disgree with someone
else choices is a far more uncivil, cruel and inhuman act than pointing out
that I think it's stupid. I expect your hard-hearted resolve would disappear
the instant it was your child being denied treatment.

Its not a bureaucratic decision. Its the individuals decision.

Great, I'm guessing almost nobody is going to choose to be harvested for
organs. You do realize that after the helmetless motorcyclists, they'll come
after the helmetless bicyclists, skateboarders, the smokers, the drinkers,
the surfers, the divers, the drivers, the flyers and on and on until nobody
can do anything that someone else determines is unsafe.

No, I think I'd rather pay for others mistakes in judgement, until I'm sure
that I am infallable.

On 2008-04-12, Lawson wrote:
"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-12, Lawson wrote:
So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.
Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still
gets 27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets
done.
I've been to Minnesota Jay, it's only snowy a small percentage of the time.
You're justifying your choices, I never asked you to. You cannot earn my
approval and I sincerely hope you don't want to.

I'm not trying o. I am explaining my rationale in hopes that you will
somehow realize that people's choices are valid even if they disagree from
yours.

I have every right to think what I want about you Jay, and I will thanks. I
also have every right to tell you so should I choose to do so.

I have a perfect right to tell you to butt the hell out of my life, too.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)