Yea, it's amazing what Bush can say when he's delivering carefully scripted and well rehearsed lines :think:

Too bad it's all cast into the meaningless pit of bullshyte.

-spence

Scripted... yes. But there's nothing there that's inconsistent with his actions.

Well, quite a bit of it is inconsistant with his actions.

He talks with a broad brush about the intrinsic rights of all humans to be free, but in reality sells more and more of our Nation to strengthen Countries like Saudi Arabia and China which promote the very values we oppose.

He gives lip service to liberty and the rule of law, yet shows no regard for Internation accords we're party to...or by many accounts even our own Constitution.

Does a Nation seeking to spread freedom detain people in foreign countries and hold them in secret indefinately?

I'd be more concerned with what Bush does, not what Bush says.

You see, he's got a bit of a credibility problem.

-spence

Oil and the Bushs
 

I am not sure if the linked article would serve as the kind of proof you are looking for in regards the families profitable realationship with the oil industry. There is quite a bit of information out there on the subject for those who are interested.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/26/St...ies_mana.shtml

Do you have a 401k? If so it is highly likely that you too are profiting from high oil prices.

I do nt have a 401k I own my onw business and do not need one.
It doesn't matter anyway, if you understood the piont, you would realize that owning oil stocks is not a bad thing....unless your running the vcountry that is getting screwed my them and you are responsable for protecting our interests. How can someone make a desision that could seriously hurt the price of the stocks he personally owns, and he own millions of dollars worth form the the harken days. He have 600,000 shares that have split and grown a few times.

Bushs statement that "if you dont need gas dont buy it" may have more substance then it may appear. Think about it. How many gallons do you have sitting in your driveway at any point in time? Multiply those gallons by however many millions of cars parked at peoples homes and work. Safe to say it is hundreds of millions or gaziilions or whatever gallons. What if you kept your tank near empty instead of near full and only bought gas on an as needed basis? If we all did that where would all that gas be instead of in our driveways? Back at the gas station or next step still at the refinery. If this is supply and demand driven as we are told this maybe an effective way to balance that supply and demand in our favor. This might be flawed logic but I'll let you guys decide.

The power of reasoning amazes me often :hihi:

A full tank of gas provides better fuel economy I was told many years ago.




What if it was a food shortage? Would it be ok for Bush to say don`t buy it if you don`t need it? Oh wait.... we do have many homeless and and people living in abject poverty now in America who are faced with daily starvation.

:yak4:

So by your reasoning we should by gas by the gallon? Sure, so we have to make more trips to the gas station...a place none of us go unless we have to, by doing this we are WASTING gas by having to refill more oftern. You asked is your logic flawed? Yes it is. Not to mention the impact you have on your engine when running it near empty. Your gas tank has sedimentary impurities in it. By running on the ragged edge you will clog your filters, and injectors. I do not know how many of you know about EFI, but my other hobby is high horsepower Mustangs, and I mean 1,000RWHP turbo street and drag cars. THis is somthing I know quite a bit about. an EFI high pressure fuel system needs atleat a 1/8 tank to insure you do not run lean and have detonation problems. Bushes comment it the stupidest thing I have ever heard, he is truly a moron and I regret voting for him.

ANd no detonation does not mean what you think it is, Detonation sounds like marbles jingling around in your heads. Some call it pinging.

Do tell....please go on. I`m mesmerized with your power of conversation :love:


Hows it going RN? Working again?

My logic may be flawed but not by the points you have shown. I never mentioned buying gas by "the gallon". I simply stated that it probably doesn't make sense to have full tanks of gas sitting in your driveway. Driving with a quarter of a tank is NOT running it near empty. For every additional one hundred pounds of weight in your vehicle you reduce your fuel mileage by approximately one percent. A gallon of gas weighs about 8.66 pounds. The difference in weight between a quarter of tank and a full tank is somewhere around 91 lbs on avg thus increasing fuel economy by .91 %. Might not be much on an individual basis but overall it is a huge number of gallons nation wide. More trips to the gas station? Yep. Does it add any additional mileage? Nope. How many gas stations do you drive by everyday? Therefore you are not wasting gas on additional trips to a gas station (unless you are a moron who is going to make special trips just to buy gas). Bottom line, sitting back and demanding low gas prices while trying to blame a single individual on high gas prices and refusing to change your driving habits is flawed logic. The one truly effective method we have of controlling gas prices is changing our driving and purchasing habits. The increased mileage economy of driving with less gas / weight in your vehicle coupled with the transfer of supply from your driveway to gas station and refineries seems to be a more effective strategy than stomping around chanting "Bush sucks".

It's relative. For someone who doesn't drive that often it may not be an issue but anyone who commutes or drives a lot for business 1/4 of a tank can be suicide when the traffic is jammed.
Sure there's a lot the individual can do, and I for one try to do what I can to minimize my personal footprint.

But on 9/11 everything was to supposed to have "changed"...and we all know the intrinsic relationship between Energy Dependence and National Security.

If radical measures are justified to preserve one, the People do have the right to demand change from our leadership on the other.

-spence

With whom... CBS news et al, or high school teachers and college professors?

Sorry but you still haven't made any sense, you might as well do the "buy only on certain days" method. If you really think that eliminating 90 pounds and making more frequent stops at the gas station is helping in any way you really have no concept of EFI fuel consumption. Do you turn your engine off when you fill up? Your supposed to, and guess what, your EFI has an enrichment starting sequence that will burn more fuel starting up then driving 2 miles, this is why you shouldn't turn of your car unless you plan on keeping it off . You didn't know that did you? In order to have this conversation, you have to have a measurable knowledge of how EFI systems burn fuel.
By filling up your tank and only driveing when nesessary, you will also avoid the sudden spikes in fuel cost, by visiting the gas station more frequently, you allow them to still trickle their product out on the market at the highest rate. THink of how many times it has spiked and dropped, by your logic, people will have to buy at the high end at some point due to running out during the height of the spike.

Driving around with the bare minimum in your tank is just not at all a good idea, if you cannot see that by what I have laid out then I cannot not explain it any simpler. Good luck

60% of the US Population.

-spence

oh yeah baby
 

hello oil companies..........

yeah...... this is president bush calling....

no ! this is really me ......you freakin idiot...

ya know all that pollution you were told not to make by the E. P. A.

well its ok now.....go ahead and make it again :p

i'll tell the EPA to back off.... okie dokie

okay ......talk to ya later byeeeeee :wave:

Odds are it's another gaffe. "If you don't need to consume gas then don't," or "don't drive if you don't need to" would have made a lot more sense.

Okay Scott than you tell us what we the undecuated in EFI should do to reduce fuel consumption and transfer the supply back to the suppliers because until there is a shift in supply and demand there will be no gas price reduction short of government intervention in a free trade market. In order to have this conversation, you have to have a measurable knowledge of how supply and demand effects commodity pricing.

I say we federalize the entire oil industry, with an elected board and 1 year term limits.

Gas will be free, but you pay a tax on the number of miles you drive measured relative to the efficiency of your vehicle.

People will finally buy smaller cars and drive less, because they hate to pay taxes :)

-spence

And I do, seeing I have a business degree Supply and demand effects and stipulations was first year;), and I did not refer to anyone else but you, so useing "we" to gain some sort of support is foolish.

An independent Governing body free from lobbiest with no personal interests in the energy industry needs to be formed to regulate pricing. We need to stop letting private corporations control natural resources. This is not a supply and demand issue, there is no problem with supply. This is a price gouging issue resulting from a monopoly that has taken control of the energy industry. When you allow a corporation to take control of a comodity that is as important as oil, you give them more control then the goverment themselves.

Just you thinking that this is a supply and demand issue proves you really don't understang what is happening. I am done explainig away your moot points as I do not feel you really want answers, you just want to some how justify our President's manuvers.

Good day.

Supply and demand certainly plays a big part.

It's just that the oil industry has complete control over short-term supply :)

-spence

what about all those ppl who don't pay taxes? are you gonna fill up their tanks for them :D

They are fixeing the supply, and intentionally creating a situation that allows them to raise prices. A true supply and demand scenario is where the supply is actually limited by uncontrollable circumstances, this is not the the case here.

I dont need to use the term "we" to gain support because the vast majority of us undersatnd that we must make certain changes in practice and behavior to help reduce fuel consumption. I used the term "we" because a great many of us fall into your condescending referal to "no measurable understanding of how EFI works". I greatly admire your knowledge on the subject. Your refusal to acknowledge the effects of supply and demand in this situation isnt even worthy of a rebuttal. Go ahead and sit back and let the government fix it all for you. I wouldn't suggest holding your breath while you wait. I on the other hand choose to do something that will effect the situation for the positive. And I'm not trying to justify anything to do with the Presidents actions in this situation. I also dont hold solely him accountable for fuel prices. It seems your hatred for the man is clouding your judgement.

Well, given that he's saying the "supply and demand" formula is being manipulated illegally, it is indeed the responsibility of the Government to address the problem!

-spence

You keep on saying "us" and "we" I am talking directly to "you".
And you obvously cannot understand that I said "you" fall in the catergory you're so willing to pull other members in to. I never said I hold him accountable, I said he should have no say on how it is regulated, this is absolutly clear in all my posts, you cannot seem to fathom the basic points I am making, it is not I whos judgment is clouded. I have stated nothing but facts, you sir, have stated nothing but "what if's" If find is humorous that you would rather not fill up your tank, then push our government (who's job it actually it by the way) to fix our energy problem hahaha. Sorry for laughing at you but c'mon, will you stop at nothing to win an argument?

You have no rebuttle on the supply and demand issue worthy of typing, this is obvious.


I am sorry for getting into this argument, I am done in this one, you can only beat a dead horse so much. I have not been a member here long enough to be getting into it with a long time member, so I will gracefully bow out.

And actually, I do agree that is we could some how boycott fuel on some level it would have tremendous impacts on pricing, but to get our whole country on the same page would be a lot harder then demanding accountability from our government.

So someone is actually reading what I posted! Thanks spence. You are close to me, we should fish the railroad bridge sometime.:ss:

Perhaps there is illegality involved perhaps not. I am refering to the ability of people like us to also leverage the issue. There is no denying that our purchasing habits will have just as much effect if not more than Government intervention.

I agree here totally, but our problem, that even you can't deny, is that we have no alternative viable fuel source except for E85 and right now it is not being produced on a largeenough scale to be a viable option. Sooner or later you will burn the same amount of fuel, whether you buy it today or tomorrow, but, if you can buy in bulk when the price drops, youc an avoid putting profits in their pockets when they spike.

I don;t want to argue with you anymore, I feel I have been a little too rude, and I appologize. Lets try to steer this back to a conversation instead of an argument.