$4/gal gas...don't whine - you voted for it

[Tom Adams]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html

'nuff said.

Tom

[Jeff Matthews]

The point is well-taken and repeated often. I understand the point and don't argue much against it. However, there is a flip side. Our reserves are important. Production from them obviously depletes them. Let's suppose oil really is running out around the world, except here. When the world's supplies go dry, at least we will have ours to support us at that time. Not a bad strategy.

[Guest srobak]

I voted for no such thing. Sorry, but I do not believe in "choosing the lesser of two evils". If neither X or Y fit my needs, then I do not choose either one. When there is a candidate worth voting for in any election at any level, and meets my needs and expectations, then I will (and have) vote for them. Until then - I shall vote with my silence.

[Guest srobak]

No path really - it is how I have always been. If neither a Fiesta or a Yugo fit my needs and gives me what I want in a car, then I need to look or wait until a better car comes along. This is how I approach most choices in life. Why choose something when it isn't really want you want and need?

[Jeff Matthews]

But you miss the whole point. It is not passing up a Yugo or Corolla because you will wait for a better car. It is: You WILL get either the Yugo or the Corolla. Which one do you prefer?

[Tom Adams]

Ahhhhhh......but therein lies the rub for in many instances silence is interpreted as acceptance or approval.

But I hear you guys and can see where you're coming from. However, and please don't take this the wrong way.....if all of us "intelligent folks" did what you have professed (and what I feel prone to do as well), the sad truth is that our elected officials would be elected by folks that truly don't deserve to vote. And THEN where would we be?? At times I feel like voting for the lesser of two evils is doing nothing more than keeping the wolves at bay. Sadly - the folks in this country who have the ideas, the leadership, the knowledge and the charisma to enact TRUE change will NEVER be in a position to make the country even greater than it is. My theory is that these true leaders just don't want to expose themselves and their families to the B.S. that comes with public life - especially for what the job pays. Anyhow........back to the oil.

I would certainly not be in favor of using only our own oil. However, I would be in favor of using our oil as a "weapon" with which to beat up on the other oil countries when they decided to try and screw us in the world market place. Nearly 100 billion barrels of oil is a pretty sizeable stick. It is my firm humble opinion that there are countries that have realized that they will never defeat us militarily, but that we can be defeated financially. And it is also my belief that that has begun in earnest. I just hope that we, as a nation, wake up to this silent attack before it's too late.

Tom

[Fish]

But you miss the whole point. It is not passing up a Yugo or Corolla because you will wait for a better car. It is: You WILL get either the Yugo or the Corolla. Which one do you prefer?

touche' not to mention,if ya got em',drill em',if ya need refineries,build em'.Pretty simple for all but a government.I suppose the people of the mid east could decide no drillin' here there or anywhere,then prices would suck for sure.

Disclaimer: I'm not for messin' up the environment,if it can't be done in a responsible way,then we just pay more,and keep cryin'.

[Guest srobak]

Which one do you prefer?

I would choose to walk.

[Jeff Matthews]

Which one do you prefer?

I would choose to walk.

I was referring to "not voting." If you don't like Obama and you don't like McCain, your best bet is to vote for the lesser of two evils, regardless of the ill-feeling you get for voting for a person who fails to inspire you. This is because, no matter what, you WILL get either McCain or Obama. So, which do you prefer? That was my point. (You don't need to debate the candidates and respond to the rhetorical question.) This was just to point out the fallacy of the choice to abstain from voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Tom Adams]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html

So, that is a political POV, not an economic one, not a social one. When I read stuff like that - written by political operatives, all I hear is the whirring of FAX machines from the nation's PR firms, hired by the F-500 to perpetually "educate" people into more bad decisions that will benefit a few fat cats.

In the 70s when nuclear power had not yet self-destructed as an idea, the PR firms were floating this whopper: "The future is all electric, and if you let us build more nuclear plants, electricity will become so cheap that it won't even make economic sense to meter it for people's homes."

C'mon Mark.....sheesh. Get pass the "they're out to get me" thing and just look at the hard facts of what we're sitting on and what clout that potentially gives us at the negotiating table. That's the point I'm trying to make. Ignore (as I did) the spin within the article. I know there's B.S. spouted and can understand where you're coming from. However, the bottom line is that we don't have to be as dependant on other countries for oil, yet we never send that message. And why is that??

Tom

[Guest srobak]

This was just to point out the fallacy of the choice to abstain from voting for the lesser of two evils.

I know what you mean, but I am also of the mindset of approaching it more like joe.consumer.

Example... If company X and company Y make garbage audio equipment AND do a poor job of marketing it... eventually they go away, and "something better" comes along because the consumer recognizes it is junk and doesn't buy it.

What I am actually hoping for is that more people vote with their silence, and both the media and the gubbament picks up on this, and gets their heads out of their arses, and "re-invents themselves". MTX is a good example of this... 15 years ago they were junk. Avoid anything they made like the plague. Now they have some of the most raved about equipment in the car audio market today. I still don't buy them because of their history, and that's my own fault - but you see where I am getting at.

I think it really set in with me when this whole "choose or lose" campaign began a few elections ago BECAUSE voter turn out was so low. Choose or lose? No - more like choose AND lose. They sent us the choose or lose message - we need to send one back: put up a good candidate.

[Jeff Matthews]

... because the dems believe that tearing up and polluting the environment is too long-lasting and to some extent, irreversible. With technology emerging that proves somewhat likely to dampen the need for oil, they would urge to delay destructive production measures and continue the ferver to implement a much better alternative. That, at least, is what I believe their position is, and I don't think it entirely unreasonable.

Here is an unfortunate thought, however. Let's say, for example, they produce all-electric cars in mass that are great substitutes for the cars we drive now. This is all accomplished because, with electric cars, the cost of operating is a mere 3 cents a mile. Now, everyone has these electric cars; the need for gas is greatly diminished; there is no more need to be a slave to foreign oil providers; etc. But then the feds notice something.... They begin to experience a rising heart rate.... Reality hits, and the nervous tension rises to panic. "Holy crap, we're not collecting 47 cents per gallon in fuel tax!" Next, they move the tax on over to electricity, and electricity is no longer the bargain it used to be. People begin looking for alternatives to electricity. The cycle repeats, and so on....

[Amy]

Sorry guys. You know how we feel about politics.