1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Boycott Gas Stations on may 19th!!!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Steveox, May 17, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Happy, don't lump that nut with the rest of us Republicans. He's so far to the right, he's coming around on the left...
     
  2. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    He's a wacko looking for attention and somehow he found this place.
     
  3. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,899
    207
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Site Admins: I'm sending in yet another cash donation in support of
    DBSTalk.com. Please use it to purchase and install 'idiot-blocking'
    software on this site.

    Please hurry before I go ballistic and nuke someone! :flaiming
     
  4. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    They dont belive you should keep what you earned.Thats why they want higher taxes so they take that money out of your wallet and give it to the needy.

    Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill, so perhaps your ideas are a bit out of whack.

    Do Democrats want to raise taxes? Sure, Democrats have the strange belief that you should pay for things here and now, and not charge it to our kids.

    If you haven't taken a look lately, Republican's are spending your money at a faster rate than the Democrats did. Sure you got a bit of tax cut (pardon, a tax rate reduction) at the federal level, but this was matched almost universally by states raising taxes to match.

    And as discussed in a different thread, transfering tax from the federal to the state level isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that spending at the federal level hasn't slacked off to compensate for reduced income but increased, also under republican control.

    The deficit Bush is willing to run up weakens our dollar, which certainly doesn't help with the oil price increase (not the sole cause, but a contributing factor).

    And before you say democrats at the state level are entirely responsible for tax and spend policies, think again.... On average, the largest spending increases from 1997 through 2002 occurred in states where Republicans controlled both branches.
     
  5. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Don't lump him in with us. :D
     
  6. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Bogy... I just don't understand you. Here we, the good people of the right, are trying to make a donation to you and you turn it down. Haven't you ever heard a saying about a horse's mouth before? :D
     
  7. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,899
    207
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Maybe because it's not about a horse's mouth. It bears more of a resemblance to a horse's patootie! :lol:
     
  8. JesusFreak

    JesusFreak Guest

    Nick is a lazy fool that won't get involved because his impact will be "unnoticeable"...So, why vote. What a schmo. I guess your crystal ball and tea leaf reading are so accurate that you rarely go out on a limb to attempt anything other than what you think is right. You are missing out on a lot, I'm sure! By the way, why doesn't everyone just send me a nickel...each person send me 1 little nickel. If you want, I'll give you paypal info. It won't add up to anything, right Nick? Hey Nick...SHUTUP. You think WAY to highly of yourself.

    The democratic party morons just want to show how the republican's just screw everything up...play the blame game, abort babies, and generally blaspheme God. Not to mention their lazy butt attitude and wanting the government to do everything for them. Here's a news flash..."SHUT UP YOU MORONS!" "YOU ARE WRONG!, NICK'S CRYSTAL BALL SAYS SO!"

    SteveOx is over the deep end wanting to kill innocent people by fleeing from cops and instilling anarchy covered in a "patriotic" theme. Geez, you have a good motive...but let's keep it controlled and accomplish the same goal.

    The other republicans are a bunch of naysayers that can't really think for themselves. If they didn't have Rush on their radio, they wouldn't know what to type. Let me translate for them.. " Baaaaa, baaaaaa, baaaaaa ". I hope I typed sheep bleating properly.

    I would never hire any of you, you are all too deterministic, "thinking you know what will happen before anyone has tried...so why even talk about it, or even worse try it" kind of people.

    Everyone thinks they are so intelligent ("it's a matter of supply/demand moron" and various other "hey, I'm a smart guy and you know nothing" statements). Well, here's another moron (me) with a slightly different take. Steve, good idea. I don't like paying that much for gas either. (Or milk and cheese, etc.). I feel like they have us over a "barrel". But, not being able to move as required to live life is not realistic. Here's a plan, (it's probably stupid) but an idea to encourage thought for a solution. (The alternative is what you guys spent days doing, blasting an idea each time one was presented.) Try to encourage each other...then maybe through a peer review, a solution will evolve. My addition to the original idea (which has passed). is instead of not buying gas on a specific day, change it to "how does each person remove their dependence on gasoline or at least minimize use"...For me, a bicycle (as was mentioned in an earlier thread) is a viable alternative to get back and forth to work. We have showers, I want to remain physically fit, etc. So, it's a natural fit. I ride with a sign on my back that says, "I don't like paying high gas prices! So, I'm doing something" (Nick, that was probably like reading Chinese to you, eh?) Other options are "move closer to where you work". Sure, it won't work for everyone, it may cost too much, family and sentimental values, etc. Another would be to start your own business carpooling people to work, before you go to work. The list is grand!

    In short, come up with your own idea that fits your lousy life...but buy less gas. That is the point.

    So, with that said. I'm sorry for blasting you all, but yes, I do feel better. Thanks!

    By the way, if you are depending on the morons that are raising little new morons to finance your retirement (via social security)..You are the BIGGEST fool...

    Let the flaming begin!

    Mike
    Husband to 1
    Father of 7
    Serving them all and loving it.
     
  9. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Wow, you lost all credibility right off the bat when you stated that Nick never goes out on a limb. :D That's his normal seat.

    As far as your suggestion to use less of natural resources, I believe that was suggested about 6 pages back, by the supply/demand moron, yours truly. You do think very highly of yourself, don't you. Hope you feel better. :rolleyes:
     
  10. JesusFreak

    JesusFreak Guest

    First of all, I don't seek your approval. Secondly, Chaplain? Hum, must be self proclaimed. I doubt a real chaplain would proof text a statement like this without using all of it for context.

    BTW - I did read it back 6 pages or so ago but forgot who mentioned it. Sorry I did not give you credit like I did the others. Again, you missed the point by just "understanding" what you want and ignoring the rest of the paragraph. It is typical for someone to read something and just see one thing that they disagree with or that catches their eye and forget everything else. In any case, you were grouped in the Rush cronie statement anyhow. To prove my point, you stated, "Hope you feel better". I had already told you "yes, I do feel better" in my original post. So, what do your words mean to me? You don't even read with understanding. Again, for my grouping of you, "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaa"...Did you get it this time? I'm still working on my sheep impersonation. It may have been off last time.

    Perhaps I did fall into the trap of thinking more highly of myself than I ought. Good observation...I'll ponder. :(
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You better reread those six pages before you start lumping us. If you think I'm a "Rush crony" you are very disallusioned. :D :lol:
    BTW, I am an ordained minister who was the 19th member. I hang around here to make life miserable for those who follow Rush. :D
     
  12. Jun 1, 2004 #172 of 195
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    ANWR should be Alaskan land, to be controlled how Alaskans want it to be controlled. The Federal Government owns 60% of Alaskan land. (222 million acres) and has placed restrictions on other Alaskan land.

    The states most of you live in are allowed to benefit from the natural resources in your state, Alaska deserves the same right. The colonization of the majority of Alaska is illegal and definitely not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Alaskan soverignty has been trampled enough.

    Just something for you to think about when you're sitting in your living room in California or Nebraska thinking what "WE" should do with "OUR" land. How about letting Alaskans decide to raise the toll on the bay bridge, or the bridges and tunnels in New York, and then send some of those tax dollars to Alaska.

    You wouldn't want us to make your decisions, the Senators and Congressmen from other states shouldn't make ours. ANWR is ALASKA'S resource, Alaska should decide what to do with, and should reap the tax benefits, Not people from Kentucky, Arkansas and elsewhere
     
  13. Jun 1, 2004 #173 of 195
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    So if the people of South Dakota want to dynamite Mt. Rushmore for a shopping mall, that would be OK with you?

    If the people of Wyoming want to bulldoze most of Yellowstone Park for a housing development, you'd be OK with that?

    How about if the people of Arizona want to fill in the Grand Canyon?
     
  14. Jun 1, 2004 #174 of 195
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Not that simple. North Dakota & South Dakota, have a great natural resources in their states. The Missouri River runs through them, with a series of dams that have created lakes. Wonderful resource, the lakes have provided tourist/recreation facilities. Dakotans were also promised the use of the water for irrigation and drinking in return for allowing hundreds of thousands of prime bottomland, as well as towns, to be flooded. Most of these were never funded. And as far as the recreational use, downriver states like Missouri think that the Dakotas are just a place to store Missouri River water when they don't want it, like the spring when it floods, and then to provide water when they do want it, like when a small number of barges need water to navigate. The fact that this can mean even more land is flooded in the Dakotas in the spring, and in dry years there isn't enough water to maintain the fish population isn't their problem. The downriver states have sued the Dakotas in order to have the river maintained at a constant depth.

    So what makes you think Alaska is so special that federal land can't be used however the federal government wants to? BTW, the seven reservations in South Dakota and other preserves and federally held land, makes up about 2/3s of South Dakota.
     
  15. Jun 1, 2004 #175 of 195
    BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    No, but if South Dakota contained abundant natural resources on federal lands that we were importing at huge expense from foreign sources then I WOULD advocate finding a way to tap those resources.

    Don't forget, a large majority of Alaskans FAVOR opening these lands for development as they already receive money from the federal government to compensate them for any perceived discomfort they might face from seeing a pipeline run through their town, and would probably see that number increased if they were to expand the drilling there. Last time I checked, the feds weren't sending ME any checks for my discomfort while driving the NJ Turnpike and seeing the oil tank farms there around Elizabeth, NJ.

    It's ironic that the same people who led the charge AGAINST drilling there are the first ones crying foul as prices go through the roof due to supply constraints. I heard on a recent Dennis Miller show on CNBC that they were now complaining that Bush's $1.2 Billion investment in Hydrogen energy research is being decried as too small. Even though it is $1.2 Billion MORE than the last guy that they loved was sitting in the big chair. I'm no Bushie, but the critics are REALLY looking silly on this one. Combine this with the fact that no new refineries have been built in the last 20 years thanks to NIMBYs keeping them out of their towns, and it is easy to see WHY we are in this pickle.

    On the good news front, Hummer sales are plummeting as Americans begin to avoid gas guzzlers again like they did in the early 80's the last time a supply crunch occurred. This may finally give us the political capital to beef up investment in Hydrogen research and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels in the long run.
     
  16. Jun 1, 2004 #176 of 195
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Again, if the people of South Dakota wanted the money and jobs that building another "Mall of the Americas" would bring, you'd have no problem with them blowing up Mt. Rushmore and building it there? Even if a large majority of South Dakotans FAVOR it?

    The money paid to Alaskans doesn't do much for the wildlife that will never be able to come back once ANWR is destroyed. And all the harping about how drilling and piping and road-building, etc. wouldn't hurt the environment... have you ever, and I mean EVER, seen a drilling operation that DIDN'T end up looking about as inhabitable as Mars? It isn't "if" there will be a disastrous spill or contamination, it's "when". Are the people of Alaska going to pay the billions and billions of dollars it'll cost to clean it up, or are they going to ask the Federal government (meaning the other 49 states) to pony up the dough? I think that gives the other 49 states a little say-so in it.
     
  17. Jun 1, 2004 #177 of 195
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Another of your totally irrelivant analogies.

    Another lie being promoted by the left. If you repeat it often enough people might start believing it. Obviously the strategy worked on you.
     
  18. Jun 1, 2004 #178 of 195
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Happy: There are many reasons for not drilling in the ANWR (it's not a panacea, would take a long time to get production up, etc, etc) but wildlife damage is NOT one of them.

    The Canadians have already shown how to drill in the Arctic without damaging the environment. Put simply, the caribou don't care.

    If you're going to be in opposition to something, at least use arguments that aren't so easily shot down. That way, you're better armed in a debate. And if the wildlife argument was your only objection, well, you might want to reconsider your position.

    My view is that the ANWR is a red herring because of the timeframe it would take to get production going and the amount of reserves there.
     
  19. Jun 1, 2004 #179 of 195
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Its not the drilling so much as the ancillatory actions that threaten the ecosystem. For example, the Exxon Valdez disaster!

    For sure, there are ways to mitigate any damage but it cost much more money. Its the same problem with "safe" nuclear power. Companies are unwilling to go the extra steps (costs) to make things safer or have less environmental impact.

    In Oregon, for example, clear-cutting is still the norm even though selective cutting is far less damaging to habitat. I do selective cutting on the woodlot I own and it gives me a nice income stream. If I clear cut it, it would give me a big hunk of money but would alter the land drastically.
     
  20. Jun 1, 2004 #180 of 195
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Again, my objection is more due to what will inevitably happen: the immense and catastrophic spill/contamination. And it will happen. It will cost multitudes of billions of dollars and it will never be completely cleaned up (just look at Valdez, they're still scraping sludge off of everything). Again, are the people of Alaska going to pay for it out of their pockets or are they going to get the other 49 states to bail them out? After all, they're wanting it so bad and say it should only be their decision to make. Let them accept the total responsibility, then.

    The environment isn't "shot down" so easily. I happen to actually give a damn what we leave generations to come.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page