Zipp0 1
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Damn GWB is responsible for all that in BOLD?
and you have the Data on this?, or did you just IMAGINE it?
I could write a book, so yes I would say I have the data. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to explain this all to you.
Bottom line - the captain of the ship is responsible for all that happens on his watch. I know this from my navy days, and serving in desert shield/storm.
Zipp0
And the admiral of the fleet ISN'T responsible, provided he didn't give direct orders causing the problems...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rehmwa 2
QuoteAnd the admiral of the fleet ISN'T responsible, provided he didn't give direct orders causing the problems...
what about Field Marshals, where do they stand in the whole thing. Is that even a rank? or just a title. And, really, "Rear Admiral"? That's the best they could come up with? And Lower and Upper half "Rear Admiral". C'mon. And what's with the Major General and Lieutenant General that's even worse than upper and lower? "Commodore" what's that? I think it's some kind of one star admiral with a particular duty?
It's very confusing. But ok as long as the buck stops here.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Zipp0 1
Quote
And the admiral of the fleet ISN'T responsible, provided he didn't give direct orders causing the problems...
Captain is to Ship as President is to Country.
Z
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
And the admiral of the fleet ISN'T responsible, provided he didn't give direct orders causing the problems...
Captain is to Ship as President is to Country.
Z
Negative...but feel free to think that way if it lets you get in your bash...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Zipp0 1
Quote
Negative...but feel free to think that way if it lets you get in your bash...
So, the TRUTH is bashing? Instead of dismissing my argument by calling it bashing, why don't you try telling me how I am wrong and you are right? Are we in a stronger position now to deal with Iran, or not? If not, why not?
And if the Buck doesn't stop at Bush, where exactly does it stop? It seems with this administration, nobody is ultimately responsible.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
rushmc 23
IMO truth is backed up with facts. It seems to me all you have is accusations......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Zipp0 1
QuoteIMO truth is backed up with facts. It seems to me all you have is accusations......
Many court cases are won on circumstantial evidence. That's why 'beyond a reasonble doubt' is the standard, not beyond all doubt.
Our weakened position in dealing with Iran has been caused, at least in part, by a misguided war in Iraq. The resulting uncertainty is at least partially responsible for oil market speculation resulting in higher prices.
Is that beyond reason?
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Quote
I'd like to see less government interference, not more. The market will drive the behavior better than a bunch of subjective laws based on pop-theory.Quote
That's been proven false. People willing to spend 55k on a Hummer are hardly deterred by an extra grand or two a year on fuel. The market reaction is too small and too slow to balance out on a diminishing resource. Again, proven false by so many resources in the past.Quote
Oh, and to just throw a grenade in there - carpool lanes continue to be the stupidist source of wasting fuel on the planet where driving cars is concerned. That and stoplights.
The carpool lane approaches to the Bay Bridge in San Francisco carry more *people* than all the other lanes combined.
'stupidest source' translates to 'doesn't help me.'
Quote
If you don't think our current energy problems are a direct result of GWB's policies, then . . . well . . . I probably can't really do anything to convice you.
man, you're not pretending to be impartial today, are you?
GWB has done as much (or little) as any President after Carter and his double nickel.
Detroit and the American public deserve the lion's share of the blame for where we are now, DC is next for utterly failing to do anything about it.
Now we're letting the fucking Iranians sell oil at 75/barrel. Taking a page from Reagan, maybe it's time to let Iraq and Iran go to war again. That was nice for oil prices.
Zipp0 1
I want a gas guzzler tax.
If you choose to drive a hummer that gets 8 mpg you need to pay a high gas tax.
Why?
Your disproportionate use of a limited resource is driving up demand and increasing prices for everyone.
Let's make that law and watch gas prices PLUMMET.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
If you choose to drive a hummer that gets 8 mpg you need to pay a high gas tax.
Why?
Your disproportionate use of a limited resource is driving up demand and increasing prices for everyone.
Let's make that law and watch gas prices PLUMMET.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
that's one way to do it. But virtually impossible to implement, since gas can be transferred from vessel to vessel. The only was to tax guzzlers directly is at the point of sale or during vehicle registration.
You could add a war tax of whatever we spent on Iraq last year and divide it by the number of gallons sold last year. Then gas prices would more closely mirror the true cost, rather than let the 'average taxpayer' subsidize those burning gas at 8 miles to the gallon.
You could add a war tax of whatever we spent on Iraq last year and divide it by the number of gallons sold last year. Then gas prices would more closely mirror the true cost, rather than let the 'average taxpayer' subsidize those burning gas at 8 miles to the gallon.
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>they're actually limiting the number of vehicles they give that right to
> now. So, if you where wealthy and lucky enough to get one early,
> yes, but wide spread use of that benefit is evaporating. My guess is
> that after hybrids reach a certain threshold, they'll do away with it
> altogether.
That's the idea. I didn't get one because I don't agree that HOV lanes should be used as incentives to buy certain kinds of cars; they should be used to reduce traffic congestion. Last time I checked they were still available though.
> now. So, if you where wealthy and lucky enough to get one early,
> yes, but wide spread use of that benefit is evaporating. My guess is
> that after hybrids reach a certain threshold, they'll do away with it
> altogether.
That's the idea. I didn't get one because I don't agree that HOV lanes should be used as incentives to buy certain kinds of cars; they should be used to reduce traffic congestion. Last time I checked they were still available though.
billvon 3,116
>I really can't see the connection between a stupid, shameless
>attempt at self promotion . . .
See below.
>and a photo opt to show support for hybrid vehicles.
Which a democrat would no doubt describe as a 'stupid, shameless attempt at self promotion.'
Bush has indeed made a few good decisions on energy/environment issues. Diesel emissions reductions - good. Recent increase in CAFE - good. But his record has been pretty negative overall when it comes to environmental protection and a proactive energy policy. He's given billions in tax cuts to oil companies while spending a few million on hydrogen vehicles, a technology that does not work to reduce our dependence on oil or clean up the environment. He has gutted EPA regulations on powerplant emissions, and allowed oil and gas companies to violate clean-water laws.
Ted Kennedy could promote anti drunk driving laws. Heck, he could even pose with a MADD spokesperson with a caption saying "Ted Kennedy - tough on drunk drivers!" Would you call that a shameless attempt at self promotion, or a simple photo op to show support for MADD?
>attempt at self promotion . . .
See below.
>and a photo opt to show support for hybrid vehicles.
Which a democrat would no doubt describe as a 'stupid, shameless attempt at self promotion.'
Bush has indeed made a few good decisions on energy/environment issues. Diesel emissions reductions - good. Recent increase in CAFE - good. But his record has been pretty negative overall when it comes to environmental protection and a proactive energy policy. He's given billions in tax cuts to oil companies while spending a few million on hydrogen vehicles, a technology that does not work to reduce our dependence on oil or clean up the environment. He has gutted EPA regulations on powerplant emissions, and allowed oil and gas companies to violate clean-water laws.
Ted Kennedy could promote anti drunk driving laws. Heck, he could even pose with a MADD spokesperson with a caption saying "Ted Kennedy - tough on drunk drivers!" Would you call that a shameless attempt at self promotion, or a simple photo op to show support for MADD?
QuoteQuote
Damn GWB is responsible for all that in BOLD?
and you have the Data on this?, or did you just IMAGINE it?
I could write a book, so yes I would say I have the data. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to explain this all to you.
Bottom line - the captain of the ship is responsible for all that happens on his watch. I know this from my navy days, and serving in desert shield/storm.
Zipp0
Ok I am gonna call BULLSHIT here
ok where is the irrefutable proof ?
I could write a book, so yes I would say I have the data. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to explain this all to you.
Bottom line - the captain of the ship is responsible for all that happens on his watch. I know this from my navy days, and serving in desert shield/storm.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites