Notices
The Basement Non-Honda/Acura discussion. Content should be tasteful and "primetime" safe.

kerry is so full of it.. (yes, another one of these threads)

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 04:34 PM
  #81  
Tobra's Avatar
Tobra
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,925
Likes: 0
From: Sacramelto, home after 10 years in Texas
Default

Originally Posted by CRX_stg3
I've served 2 times when duty called and I've seen more than I wanted to. I just want to get back to the old life now.
Thank you for your service, sincerely.

Not to be too arrogant, but I would hazard a guess that I am as intelligent and literate as any who frequent this area, and I am voting for Mr. Bush. I know my vote will be for naught, as I happen to live in the land of fruits and nuts. I thought it terrifically ironic that there were so many "protestors" arrested, many for assaulting police officers. People don't capitalize kerry for a reason, think about it.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 04:35 PM
  #82  
BonzoAPD's Avatar
BonzoAPD
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Default

Originally Posted by antarius
Now now, be fair. That's not entirely true.

What is true is that Kerry has, on multiple occasions, voted for a $0.50 per gallon gas tax in the past. Whether or not he supports that now is a different story, and you know with Kerry - it very well could have changed.

In any case, it's not entirely fair to say that he *will add* that tax if he gets elected... at this point anyway. Maybe he'll say something that will point us in that direction, but as of now I think that's a broad assumption.

That said, is there really anyway to know what Kerry is going to do in office? The guy changes his mind so often and is lacking core beliefs in such a way that it scares me to think that he'd have the worlds most powerful military and nuclear arsenal at his fingertips.
That is a very good point JP.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 06:22 PM
  #83  
Epoch's Avatar
Epoch
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Default

Originally Posted by BonzoAPD
You realize that Kerry wants to add a 50cent/gallon tax on gas if he gets elected don't you :dunno:
Actually, I would welcome that. See... here's the problem... our tax money is already GOING to gasoline production, making it artificially cheap here in the US. The reason they pay the equivalent of $6+ per gallon in Europe isn't because they're getting better gas or it's more scarce there... they're paying the actual price. The government is giving "welfare", if you will, to the oil companies to keep the prices low. Yes... you pay corporate welfare all the time, and you'd be surprised to know that it sucks up far more money than all of the single black mothers combines. Back on topic, the gasoline tax would help limit consumption of gasoline AND SUVs...

And it's a fair tax. Those who buy bigger, more gas consuming cars and drive more tend to be people with more money. Those with less money tend to drive smaller cars and use mass transit more. Those who pollute the air and clog the roads have to pay a preponderance of the tax, while those who impact less pay less. Logical, no?

Originally Posted by antarius
Now now, be fair. That's not entirely true.

What is true is that Kerry has, on multiple occasions, voted for a $0.50 per gallon gas tax in the past. Whether or not he supports that now is a different story, and you know with Kerry - it very well could have changed.

In any case, it's not entirely fair to say that he *will add* that tax if he gets elected... at this point anyway. Maybe he'll say something that will point us in that direction, but as of now I think that's a broad assumption.

That said, is there really anyway to know what Kerry is going to do in office? The guy changes his mind so often and is lacking core beliefs in such a way that it scares me to think that he'd have the worlds most powerful military and nuclear arsenal at his fingertips.
Better that than a single-minded man who ignores the facts and charges blindly forward with personal vendettas...
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 06:36 PM
  #84  
MrFatbooty's Avatar
MrFatbooty
Wannabe yuppie
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Default

The total amount of oil pumped from ANWR would be less than the proverbial drop in the bucket. No point drilling there when the total investment in getting the oil would somewhat offset the increased supply, at least in terms of price.

And the reason gasoline is so expensive in Europe is because they tax the shit out of it over there.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 06:38 PM
  #85  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Originally Posted by Epoch
2 years to build the pipeline, all of the infrastructure to build and maintain the facilities, the facilities themselves, to find the best resources of oil, and to train and/or relocate staff? You overestimate the feasibility of the situation. I'd say 5-7 years to do that, if they include a modest amount of thought ahead planning, and at least 10 years to do it right, if rushed.
The pipeline is there, you just need to tap into it from the fields in ANWAR. We already know where the oil is...surveys have been done already which is why we know ANWAR is a good place. Building and maintaining facilities is easy...the major oil companies probably already have plans in place to go drill there. At some point it will be inevitable that we do. 2 years is plenty enough of a timeframe for them to do it. Just wait till ANWAR is open and see how quickly these companies get pumping that crude. And to be honest every day they are not is a days worth of revenue lost which is a rather large incentive to do it quickly.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 06:40 PM
  #86  
DVPGSR's Avatar
DVPGSR
I need sleep...
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
The total amount of oil pumped from ANWR would be less than the proverbial drop in the bucket. No point drilling there when the total investment in getting the oil would somewhat offset the increased supply, at least in terms of price.
Compared to the amount consumed by the world...yes! Compared to what is consumed by the US...no!


And the reason gasoline is so expensive in Europe is because they tax the shit out of it over there.
Yup...most of the taxes get funneled back to their roads and highways too. Every drive the autobahns? :drool: :yum:
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 06:43 PM
  #87  
BonzoAPD's Avatar
BonzoAPD
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Default

Originally Posted by Epoch
And it's a fair tax. Those who buy bigger, more gas consuming cars and drive more tend to be people with more money. Those with less money tend to drive smaller cars and use mass transit more. Those who pollute the air and clog the roads have to pay a preponderance of the tax, while those who impact less pay less. Logical, no?

The SUV comment may be correct, but I highly disagree with the people who drive more making more money. In many cases the people who drive the most are the people who cannot afford to live close to their job because they do not make enough money and they have to live an hour or two away. Then there are the delivery people (food, as well as newspapers) who make very little money and pay for their own gas in most situations. So these are the hard working people that would be hurt.

The US car manufacturer's would take a huge hit as well since their biggest sellers are SUV's. So if these companies loose more money, they will decrease production and end up firing blue collar workers. These are the same people that the Democrats say they represent. If that was really the case they would see how such a tax would end up hurting these people the most.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 07:23 PM
  #88  
CivicRacr's Avatar
CivicRacr
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
Default

Originally Posted by BonzoAPD
The SUV comment may be correct, but I highly disagree with the people who drive more making more money. In many cases the people who drive the most are the people who cannot afford to live close to their job because they do not make enough money and they have to live an hour or two away. Then there are the delivery people (food, as well as newspapers) who make very little money and pay for their own gas in most situations. So these are the hard working people that would be hurt.

The US car manufacturer's would take a huge hit as well since their biggest sellers are SUV's. So if these companies loose more money, they will decrease production and end up firing blue collar workers. These are the same people that the Democrats say they represent. If that was really the case they would see how such a tax would end up hurting these people the most.
domestic car makers already loose money from poor sales. and loosing SUVs in favor for more gas friendly cars wouldnt be such a bad thing. might mean car makers will just have to improve technology to use other fuel sources and start making those vechicals, which then could mean jobs for those who lost their jobs making SUVs.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 07:25 PM
  #89  
BonzoAPD's Avatar
BonzoAPD
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Default

Originally Posted by CivicRacr
domestic car makers already loose money from poor sales. and loosing SUVs in favor for more gas friendly cars wouldnt be such a bad thing. might mean car makers will just have to improve technology to use other fuel sources and start making those vechicals, which then could mean jobs for those who lost their jobs making SUVs.
I doubt it will happen any time soon. The technology is too expensive right now to be affordable for most people as a viable solution. Bush has helped make it more affordable with his tax credits for those who buy them.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2004 | 07:28 PM
  #90  
antarius's Avatar
antarius
Large Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,735
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Epoch
And it's a fair tax. Those who buy bigger, more gas consuming cars and drive more tend to be people with more money. Those with less money tend to drive smaller cars and use mass transit more. Those who pollute the air and clog the roads have to pay a preponderance of the tax, while those who impact less pay less. Logical, no?


Better that than a single-minded man who ignores the facts and charges blindly forward with personal vendettas...
What about those who don't have much money and have no public transit available to them, but are forced to commute because of the job market? Too bad for them?

The second part: That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it - but I personally want someone in office that has feelings, core beliefs, and is willing to stick to his word through thick and thin and press forward his beliefs, than one who can't make his own decision on what food to eat - let alone what to do with my country.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:18 PM.