The Sisko Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 He shouldn't. I'm not going to stop driving my Navigator or my brother his Escolade and I'm going to keep a full tank no matter who is in the White House or Congress artificially creating a shortage. Wow, not even you are that dumb....are you? Hmm so instead of actually drilling for more oil in the places we know it is and building more refineries we should continue with a finite amount and pretend that there is an oil shortage that we can't do anything about and blame consumers like they should walk or ride a subway.Not long ago liberals were sniveling that we werent paying the same amount for gas as the Euros but then again the majority of that was in taxes there wouldnt be complaints if the majority of the gas price was taxes to WEAN us off gas yet none of those liberal 5 watt light bulbs will answer how will the government recoup all of that gas tax money when its gone for sea water or battery power. Because oil is bad if we selfish Americans want to utilize our own resources domestically and not listen to the same liberal BS. OK, so maybe you are that dumb after all. Unfortunately, as usual you're wrong, both about supply and about speculators being the cause of the increase in oil prices. Don't you love the entitlement generation. Don't ask me to conserve or change my habits. I'm going to do whatever I want, whenever the hell I want.In the 1940's, Americans united together and rationed and became a stronger country. In the 2000's, you couldn't be bothered to ration or conserve for the public good. In fact, it'd be offensive if you were even asked too. The modern mantra... I hate the terrorists, but I love giving them my money. QF freaking T!! This was what I was referring to when I partially agreed with Phil Graham about us being a bunch of whiners. Look, the days of cheap oil are over. Global population and industrialization are up and supply has had trouble keeping up with demand. THAT is the real reason prices are so high. Get over it. As for Dubya, last I checked a POTUS was supposed to lead. It kind of comes with the job. Of course, even Dubya has to know that most people aren't going to conserve simply because he asks them to. However, he certainly could provide substantive leadership by asking Congress for legislation to encourage conservation...lower speed limits, tax breaks and the like. But that would make too much sense and might endanger his chances of re-election, his approval rating or his legacy....oh, wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 So is it the consensus view of some folks in this thread that it's not Bush's job to suggest that consumers take reasonable steps to conserve energy... ...but it is his job to repeatedly tell consumers to do more shopping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think this whole arguement is hillarious. Why should the President be telling anyone whether they should be driving or not? If you don't have the $$$ for gas, don't drive. If you do, then go right ahead. Pretty simple logic to me. After all, what business is it of the government's if you're sponsoring terrorism? As long as you've got the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Imagine if they really tried to find a Alt Energy starting in 1998? We could have Hybrids that are dropping our oil usage by huge amounts.But going forward, we should probably think about "What's Next?". Not, what's last century. I totally agree with your first point. My only question is if we started drilling today and searching for alternative energy today, which would come first by 2017 or 2018 . . . the oil we can use or the alternative energy? Bush saying save gas won't make everyone have an epiphany, but as a leader, he needs to bring things into focus and think beyond themselves and maybe even understand the bigger picture. This, I agree with. I don't think it is a big deal that he didn't say anything because, again, do we really need someone in office to tell us to "conserve our salary" . . . but he could have mentioned something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 After all, what business is it of the government's if you're sponsoring terrorism? As long as you've got the money. Two different things, Larry. One is a national security issue. One is a personal spending issue. The first is an issue that the Federal government has some control over, the second it shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The modern mantra... I hate the terrorists, but I love giving them my money. I thought that was the Dem mantra? $600 billion + a yr going out for foreign oil,while we only lease out 3% of our offshore resources. And throw in humanitarian aid to Hamas & co. We obviously aren't too self centered if we are willing to give away money we don't have :laugh: Fools would be closer :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 That's unfortunate for the trucker. Unfortunately the cost of diesel fuel is part of their livelyhood. It stinks, but it's a fact of life. Many of them are choosing to go out of business because they can't afford the fuel costs. Unfortunate but something that industry has to deal with. Correction-that's something every industry will have to deal with. Do you have any idea how dependent we are on shipping goods around the country, often via trucks? Trust me, it's huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Wow... I agree with Bush on something. Wow. I need to get my chainsaw so I can cut my head off now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Correction-that's something every industry will have to deal with. Do you have any idea how dependent we are on shipping goods around the country, often via trucks? Trust me, it's huge. Definitely, Yusuf. Trust me, even in my industry (electrical utility co) we're feeling the pinch of the gas prices and seeing the increase in costs for us when it comes to delivering materials to our platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 So is it the consensus view of some folks in this thread that it's not Bush's job to suggest that consumers take reasonable steps to conserve energy......but it is his job to repeatedly tell consumers to do more shopping? I already have a mother. Don't need another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Why is it news that the President wont ask Americans to conserve gas. If Americans arent already conserving gas, they're either rich or stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Why is it news that the President wont ask Americans to conserve gas. If Americans arent already conserving gas, they're either rich or stupid. **** gas... If I could drink that **** I would. Hell, it's cheaper than bottled water. Not cheaper than Red bull though. Hmmm, maybe I can use Red Bull in my tank. *I do not endorse any of the thoughts stated above, besides **** gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 **** gas... If I could drink that **** I would. Hell, it's cheaper than bottled water. Not cheaper than Red bull though. Hmmm, maybe I can use Red Bull in my tank. Well, it is an energy drink... hmm... Still, I think that a leader's job is to lead by example and by rhetoric. To suggest that we must embark on a new "space race," the race to make solar or whatever feasible and practical would be galvanizing. We'd be moving forward instead of clutching our wallets more fearfully. To say that we must tighten our belts and possibly sacrifice a little comfort as we move into this new world or that we must pitch in taxwise to pay for new nuclear plants, oil refineries, research grants.... wouldn't be a bad thing at all in my estimation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.