Why are gas prices so high?
sit...@aol.com
up...the worst thing about this outrage is most motorists don't seem to
mind that they're getting ass-fucked every time they pump their SUVs
full of regular unleaded at Joe's Quicki Mart.
Statistics show that traffic hasn't been impacted by this crap. Am I
the only one who's pissed off about this thievery of America's
pocketbooks? I used to be a substitute teacher and would have to
travel all over Tennessee from school to school. The fuel prices were
killing me; I ended up coughing out $100 a week and that was just for a
Ford Focus.
As of now I don't pay for gasoline. I pump and drive away...it's quite
an efficient maneuver, kind of reminiscent of the colonies dumping
overpriced tea into the Boston Harbor. I just refuse to relinquish my
hard-earned funds for outlandish gas prices for the benefit of greedy
fuel moguls who are profiting from my misery. If America won't
protest, I will. At this point, oil companies have gotten America
brainwashed to appreciate $1.90 gas prices. $1.90 is high enough, but
$2.20 for regular unleaded? No, I don't pay such exorbitant fees just
to drive to work and back. Until then, I'll pump and drive.
william lynch
sit...@aol.com at sit...@aol.com wrote on 4/1/05 2:59 PM:
The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
record.
Regarding you just driving away after filling your tank; in some
places this may be a felony, so watch thyself.
Sherman Cahal
> I don't buy "increasing demand" as an excuse to jack fuel prices
> up...the worst thing about this outrage is most motorists don't seem
to
> mind that they're getting ass-fucked every time they pump their SUVs
> full of regular unleaded at Joe's Quicki Mart.
Actually, anyone who has taken an advanced economics course will know
that when a future price increase is expected (which will occur) and
you have an increase in quantity (summer demand), then the price will
go up to meet the demand. It is refered to as a Demand Shifter, as the
demand shifts to the right parallel to the X-axis, and not up.
You also have a greater demand for gasoline in the summer (and when
warmer weather hits) than in the winter. The increase in demand during
these warmer periods means a higher price and a greater quantity,
ceteris paribus.
Taking a look at an equilbrium graph: Your winter equilibrium reflects
a much lower price and a much lower demand versus your summer
equilibrium price.
If demand increases and supply stays unchanged, then the equilibrium
quantity rises and the equilibrium price increases. If demand
equilibrium and supply increases, the equilibrium increase and the
equilibrium price is indeterminate. If demand increases and supply
decreases, then the equilibrium quantity is indeterminate and the
equilibrium price increases.
> Statistics show that traffic hasn't been impacted by this crap. Am I
> the only one who's pissed off about this thievery of America's
> pocketbooks? I used to be a substitute teacher and would have to
> travel all over Tennessee from school to school. The fuel prices were
> killing me; I ended up coughing out $100 a week and that was just for
a
> Ford Focus.
I'm not complaining. I think it is justifible, for the fact that
Americans are too dependent on cars and we have grown a culture around
them. I find it laughable that we complain about $2.11 gas prices when
we pay higher prices for similar quantities for bottled water and so
forth. Take a drive around in Europe or S. Korea, where I have been
both, and observe their $4-5 / gal price ranges.
> As of now I don't pay for gasoline. I pump and drive away...it's
quite
> an efficient maneuver, kind of reminiscent of the colonies dumping
> overpriced tea into the Boston Harbor. I just refuse to relinquish
my
> hard-earned funds for outlandish gas prices for the benefit of greedy
> fuel moguls who are profiting from my misery. If America won't
> protest, I will. At this point, oil companies have gotten America
> brainwashed to appreciate $1.90 gas prices. $1.90 is high enough,
but
> $2.20 for regular unleaded? No, I don't pay such exorbitant fees
just
> to drive to work and back. Until then, I'll pump and drive.
Then I hope you get caught and be forced to pay back thousands upon
thousands for your illegial efforts. You and the rest of your sick
minded "run offs" increase the prices for everybody.
sit...@aol.com
increasingly more difficult because most of these gas stations enforce
the "pay before pumping" rule. I also can't return to the stations
where I "pump and drive" because of the threat of being identified.
But I feel like a bloody colonist living under King George every time I
do it.
sit...@aol.com
there truly is a "supply and demand," would have be from the increase
usage of those bloody SUVs. Those god damned tanks are a menace to the
road ways and to the economy.
Adam Prince
william lynch wrote:
> The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
> futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
> speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
> And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
> many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
> record.
I won't argue against the public record for that is fact...but Bill you
can go without the 'right wing nazis' term?
I do ask why many continue to ignore the role China and India are
playing in this. Oil is a worldwide commodity not something exclusive
to the United States. China was a key player in the steel shortage and
increase of last year and are currently doing the same with oil. As is
India,
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453454.94375.html
Bottom paragraph here:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
Throw in a possible strike in Nigeria:
http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a=1141160;s=rollingnews.htm
Lets look at the real influences on prices like supply/demand, lack of
new refinaries being built, outlawing of single hulled tankers,
environmental legislations and regulations, the current lack of an
alternative source or technology versus the political views of the left
and right.
william lynch
Prince at apri...@carolina.rr.com wrote on 4/1/05 3:28 PM:
>
> william lynch wrote:
>
>> The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
>> futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
>> speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
>> And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
>> many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
>> record.
>
> I won't argue against the public record for that is fact...but Bill you
> can go without the 'right wing nazis' term?
Correct, my apologies. I had just been arguing with someone of
that leaning in another group.
>
> I do ask why many continue to ignore the role China and India are
> playing in this. Oil is a worldwide commodity not something exclusive
> to the United States. China was a key player in the steel shortage and
> increase of last year and are currently doing the same with oil. As is
> India,
>
> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453454.94375.html
> Bottom paragraph here:
> http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.
> asp
>
> Throw in a possible strike in Nigeria:
> http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a=1141160;s=rollingnews.htm
>
> Lets look at the real influences on prices like supply/demand, lack of
> new refinaries being built, outlawing of single hulled tankers,
> environmental legislations and regulations, the current lack of an
> alternative source or technology versus the political views of the left
> and right.
Everything that you mentioned is a longer term factor. None of
which explains the price increasing 50% in 10 weeks. The WSJ had
an article about how futures speculation was driving the prices
up a few weeks ago.
Jack May
"Adam Prince" <apri...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1112398130.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I do ask why many continue to ignore the role China and India are
> playing in this. Oil is a worldwide commodity not something exclusive
> to the United States. China was a key player in the steel shortage and
> increase of last year and are currently doing the same with oil. As is
> India,
The first part of this year is when for the first time the world demand for
oil exceeded the world available supply (present pumping capacity). China,
India, and the lack of new supplies are responsible.
The elasticity for oil consumption is also small. Increasing prices does
not lead to total reduced income. A great set of conditions for
speculators.
Essentially the choice for the US is to innovate to develop alternative fuel
sources or hold on to the past with constant bidding up of a declining oil
supply until the economy grinds to a halt.
elaich
news:1112396347.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> As of now I don't pay for gasoline. I pump and drive away...
PLEASE do not feed the April Fools.
Brian Gideon
demand economics combined with speculation that the Hubbert peak will
occur sooner rather than later.
About 20 gallons of gasoline can be refined from 1 barrel of oil. At
$55 per barrel of oil it is costing the oil companies ~$2.75 per gallon
of gasoline. If gas prices were tied to spot oil prices we'd be paying
well over $3.00/gallon right now after refining, transporting, storing,
and marketing the fuel. Sit back and let that sink in.
H.B. Elkins
>The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
>futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
>speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
>And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
>many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
>record.
Now that's as wacky a conspiracy theory as I've heard -- seen any black
helicopters lately, there Mr. Lynch???
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
Jack May
"Brian Gideon" <brian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112409508.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> About 20 gallons of gasoline can be refined from 1 barrel of oil. At
> $55 per barrel of oil it is costing the oil companies ~$2.75 per gallon
> of gasoline.
First time I have seen that calculation. Very interesting.
H.B. Elkins
>Everything that you mentioned is a longer term factor. None of
>which explains the price increasing 50% in 10 weeks. The WSJ had
>an article about how futures speculation was driving the prices
>up a few weeks ago.
That may be true, but trying to stretch that fact into a Bush-bash is just that
- a stretch.
Any good politician knows that it's in his best interest to keep prices down,
not up.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> william lynch wrote:
>
> >The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
> >futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
> >speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
> >And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
> >many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
> >record.
>
> Now that's as wacky a conspiracy theory as I've heard -- seen any black
> helicopters lately, there Mr. Lynch???
"Lynch" is a good name for someone who walks around with a rope-noose
around his neck.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
John Repp
Brian Gideon wrote:
> I suspect the latest run up in prices are little more than supply and
> demand economics combined with speculation that the Hubbert peak will
> occur sooner rather than later.
>
> About 20 gallons of gasoline can be refined from 1 barrel of oil. At
> $55 per barrel of oil it is costing the oil companies ~$2.75 per
gallon
> of gasoline. If gas prices were tied to spot oil prices we'd be
paying
> well over $3.00/gallon right now after refining, transporting,
storing,
> and marketing the fuel. Sit back and let that sink in.
The financial earnings results of the oil companies release dont tie
out with costs of $2.75 per gallon and average prices of $1.56 per
gallon. Given, there is a lot of products and by-products out of the
barrel of oil, but these companies do not operate segments of business
at a loss. The 20 gallons per barrel may be a bit light.
Reported on eia.doe.gov in its this week in petroleum
"Since roughly mid-February, when both spot and retail gasoline prices
were relatively stable for a few weeks, the weighted average U.S. spot
price for regular gasoline has risen by about 28 cents, from $1.28 on
February 18 to $1.56 per gallon as of March 28, while EIA's weekly
retail price has risen 25 cents, from $1.905 to $2.153, over roughly
the same period"
OGT '92
> william lynch wrote:
>
>> The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
>> futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
>> speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
>> And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
>> many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
>> record.
>
> I won't argue against the public record for that is fact...but Bill you
> can go without the 'right wing nazis' term?
Why not call them "right wing nazis?" Adam? Adam, we should call it like it
is. If the shoe fits, lace it up, Adam.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
OGT '92
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:40:05 GMT, william lynch wrote:
>
>> Everything that you mentioned is a longer term factor. None of
>> which explains the price increasing 50% in 10 weeks. The WSJ had
>> an article about how futures speculation was driving the prices
>> up a few weeks ago.
>
> That may be true, but trying to stretch that fact into a Bush-bash is just
> that
> - a stretch.
You don't have to stretch anything to bash Bush. It just comes naturally.
> Any good politician knows that it's in his best interest to keep prices
> down,
> not up.
Since Bush is ineligible for re-election, this is a moot point.
OGT '92
> H.B. Elkins <hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote:
>>
>> william lynch wrote:
>>
>>> The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
>>> futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
>>> speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
>>> And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
>>> many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
>>> record.
>>
>> Now that's as wacky a conspiracy theory as I've heard -- seen any black
>> helicopters lately, there Mr. Lynch???
>
> "Lynch" is a good name for someone who walks around with a rope-noose
> around his neck.
Did you put it there, KKKozel?
william lynch
hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate wrote on 4/1/05 6:24 PM:
Go read in your daily paper about the futures prices. Or are
you afraid that this might be true?
william lynch
hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate wrote on 4/1/05 6:27 PM:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:40:05 GMT, william lynch wrote:
>
>> Everything that you mentioned is a longer term factor. None of
>> which explains the price increasing 50% in 10 weeks. The WSJ had
>> an article about how futures speculation was driving the prices
>> up a few weeks ago.
>
> That may be true, but trying to stretch that fact into a Bush-bash is just
> that
> - a stretch.
>
> Any good politician knows that it's in his best interest to keep prices down,
> not up.
And when exactly is W's next election? He doesn't care about *anything*
any more. He has no one to answer to.
william lynch
watNOS...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/1/05 8:43 PM:
> TV's Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> H.B. Elkins <hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote:
>>>
>>> william lynch wrote:
>>>
>>>> The prices are so high because all of the Bush cronies bought oil
>>>> futures, and the prez is doing everything he can to increase
>>>> speculation on oil prices so his friends make out like bandits.
>>>> And before the right wing nazis start harrumphing, the fact that
>>>> many Friends Of Bush own many millions in oil futures is public
>>>> record.
>>>
>>> Now that's as wacky a conspiracy theory as I've heard -- seen any black
>>> helicopters lately, there Mr. Lynch???
>>
>> "Lynch" is a good name for someone who walks around with a rope-noose
>> around his neck.
>
> Did you put it there, KKKozel?
Kozel always comes up with things like this when he cannot understand
what is being discussed.
Brian Gideon
barrel. I assumed the by-products could not be processed. I'm quite
embarrassed for making such a silly mistake.
Brian
george conklin
> Brian
>
> John Repp wrote:
>>
>> The financial earnings results of the oil companies release dont tie
>> out with costs of $2.75 per gallon and average prices of $1.56 per
>> gallon. Given, there is a lot of products and by-products out of the
>> barrel of oil, but these companies do not operate segments of
>> business at a loss. The 20 gallons per barrel may be a bit light.
>>
>> Reported on eia.doe.gov in its this week in petroleum
>> "Since roughly mid-February, when both spot and retail gasoline
>> prices were relatively stable for a few weeks, the weighted average
>> U.S. spot price for regular gasoline has risen by about 28 cents,
>> from $1.28 on February 18 to $1.56 per gallon as of March 28, while
>> EIA's weekly retail price has risen 25 cents, from $1.905 to $2.153,
>> over roughly the same period"
>
> Yes. I forgot to figure in the other products that come from a single
> barrel. I assumed the by-products could not be processed. I'm quite
> embarrassed for making such a silly mistake.
>
In constant dollars, the price of a gallon of gas peaked at $3.15 in today's
money about 1982. So until then, we do not have high-priced gas.
william lynch
conklin at geo...@nxu.edu wrote on 4/2/05 7:33 AM:
Sure we do. 82 was simply *very* high priced gas.
Strange how these gas price spikes only happen when the repubs
have control.
Robert Cruickshank
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:40:05 GMT, william lynch wrote:
>
>
>>Everything that you mentioned is a longer term factor. None of
>>which explains the price increasing 50% in 10 weeks. The WSJ had
>>an article about how futures speculation was driving the prices
>>up a few weeks ago.
>
>
> That may be true, but trying to stretch that fact into a Bush-bash is just that
> - a stretch.
>
> Any good politician knows that it's in his best interest to keep prices down,
> not up.
Theoretically, yes, but then Bush has proven himself able to maintain
his political dominance in the face of problems created by his policies.
From the deficit to the mismanaged war to the slow economic recovery,
things that would have crippled other politicians simply roll of his back.
This is because, more and more, modern politics is not about actual
issues but about personalities, wedge issues calculated to appeal to
targeted voter blocs, and vague, ill-defined concepts of "right" and
"left" - not to mention unprecedented manipulation of a pliant media to
create a favorable climate in mass opinion. These tactics are by no
means unique to Bush, but he and his advisers have proven themselves to
have mastered them better than anyone else.
All of which is a long winded way of saying that Bush has figured out
how to enrich his oil business friends via high prices and not have that
cripple him politically. Anyone who thinks Bush would act against the
interest of those friends hasn't paid close attention to this
presidency. Perhaps the only consistent factor with this administration
is its adamant refusal to do anything that would hurt its friends,
loyalists, or allies, no matter the cost.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive
Sherman Cahal
KKKozel also called me Sherman Catails. But we all know KKKozel is
nothing more than a big guy full of hot air.
H.B. Elkins
>Go read in your daily paper about the futures prices. Or are
>you afraid that this might be true?
Oh I know that futures prices are up -- but I think it's a bit of a stretch to
try to tie that to Bush.
Alan Stevens
Taken right out of the 30-year old DNC playbook.
> All of which is a long winded way of saying that Bush has figured out
> how to enrich his oil business friends via high prices and not have
that
> cripple him politically. Anyone who thinks Bush would act against the
> interest of those friends hasn't paid close attention to this
> presidency. Perhaps the only consistent factor with this
administration
> is its adamant refusal to do anything that would hurt its friends,
> loyalists, or allies, no matter the cost.
As usual, Mr. Kookshank offers no evidence to support his bitter
screed, just assertion. Is it any wonder why the Democrats continue to
lose national elections?
Alan Stevens
>
> TV's H.B. Elkins wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:40:05 GMT, william lynch wrote:
> >
> >> Everything that you mentioned is a longer term factor. None of
> >> which explains the price increasing 50% in 10 weeks. The WSJ had
> >> an article about how futures speculation was driving the prices
> >> up a few weeks ago.
> >
> > That may be true, but trying to stretch that fact into a Bush-bash
is just
> > that
> > - a stretch.
>
> You don't have to stretch anything to bash Bush. It just comes
naturally.
It just comes naturally to a liberal fascist like yourself.
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts
>It just comes naturally to a liberal fascist like yourself.
...says the Nazi.
MrSparkle
> in article WWy3e.13117$S46....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, george
> conklin at geo...@nxu.edu wrote on 4/2/05 7:33 AM:
>
>>
>>In constant dollars, the price of a gallon of gas peaked at $3.15 in today's
>>money about 1982. So until then, we do not have high-priced gas.
>
>
> Sure we do. 82 was simply *very* high priced gas.
>
> Strange how these gas price spikes only happen when the repubs
> have control.
>
Quite a spike 1978-1980:
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm
And then quite a drop during after a few years of Reagan
Arif Khokar
> As of now I don't pay for gasoline. I pump and drive away
A better way to do it is to purchase $1000.00 worth of gas. That way,
the meter keeping track of the amount of fuel you purchase will roll
over from $999.99 to $0.00. It's a nice and *legal* way to not have to
pay for gas.
US 71
<sit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1112396347.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I don't buy "increasing demand" as an excuse to jack fuel prices
> up...
"Increasing demand" is a farce. It's the oil companies making record profits
again off our backs!
william lynch
Cahal at she...@cahaltech.com wrote on 4/2/05 9:37 AM:
In all fairness he takes pretty good pix. On the other hand I don't
think that he knows how to not be an ass.
william lynch
Stevens at awst...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/2/05 10:33 AM:
That's a direct cause-and-effect from the erosion of the educational
system. The repubs know that a stupider electorate is more likely
to vote repub.
william lynch
akhok...@wvu.edu wrote on 4/2/05 2:12 PM:
I notice that you sorta skipped over the actual logistics of such
a purchase. I suspect that you are just playing devil's advocate
with this.
Alan Stevens
Calling the majority of the electorate "stupid" is just another sign of
diseased liberal thinking that will turn off even more voters in future
elections. You're not going to win elections that way.
As another poster said, the main cause of higher oil prices is
increased worldwide demand, with China being the main growth market for
oil products.
This article shows how this is occuring:
The Dawn of a New Oil Era?
China is the world's second-largest consumer of oil. It has about 20
million cars and trucks now. By the year 2020, that may be 120 million.
By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek
April 4 issue - The interesting question about the advent of
$50-a-barrel oil is whether it signals a new era in the economics and
politics of energy. To sharpen the question: have we entered a period
when, owing to consistently strong demand and chronically scarce
supplies, prices have moved permanently higher? We don't know, but the
answer could be "yes" for at least one reason: China.
Americans consume almost 21 million barrels of oil a day, a quarter of
the world total of 84 million barrels a day, reports the International
Energy Agency. But China is now second at 6.4 million barrels a day,
and its demand could double by 2020, various analysts told a conference
held last week by the Center for Strategic & International Studies
(CSIS) in Washington. Moreover, China will import most of its new
needs; its domestic output is steady at about 3.5 million barrels a
day. It's unclear how much China's extra demand-and that of other
developing countries, especially India-will stimulate extra oil
production.
RJ
Yeah, that's a good way to change people's minds. Call them stupid.
--
RJ
OGT '92
>>>>>> Now that's as wacky a conspiracy theory as I've heard -- seen any
>>>>>> black
>>>>>> helicopters lately, there Mr. Lynch???
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lynch" is a good name for someone who walks around with a rope-noose
>>>>> around his neck.
>>>>
>>>> Did you put it there, KKKozel?
>>>
>>> Kozel always comes up with things like this when he cannot understand
>>> what is being discussed.
>>
>> KKKozel also called me Sherman Catails. But we all know KKKozel is
>> nothing more than a big guy full of hot air.
I bet you cried for a week after that.
> In all fairness he takes pretty good pix. On the other hand I don't
> think that he knows how to not be an ass.
Agreed.
OGT '92
"Liberal" and "fascist" are near-opposites. Get it straight.
william lynch
re_jo...@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 4:50 PM:
We only need to change two or three percent.
Rick Powell
of alternative fuel strategies become more and more appealing and cost
effective. Even dubious fuels such as "E85" will have a net price/unit
of energy advantage over gasoline if gas stabilizes at $2.50/gal. Not
to mention Fischer-Tropsch process (Sasol) of extracting petroleum
compounds from coal, oil tar sands, etc. The oil producers and dealers
should be careful not to kill their golden goose.
Rick Powell
IDOT District 3
Sherman Cahal
OGT '92 wrote:
> TV's william lynch wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Now that's as wacky a conspiracy theory as I've heard -- seen
any
> >>>>>> black
> >>>>>> helicopters lately, there Mr. Lynch???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Lynch" is a good name for someone who walks around with a
rope-noose
> >>>>> around his neck.
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you put it there, KKKozel?
> >>>
> >>> Kozel always comes up with things like this when he cannot
understand
> >>> what is being discussed.
> >>
> >> KKKozel also called me Sherman Catails. But we all know KKKozel is
> >> nothing more than a big guy full of hot air.
>
> I bet you cried for a week after that.
Oh you can bet your dollar on that one!
> > In all fairness he takes pretty good pix. On the other hand I
don't
> > think that he knows how to not be an ass.
>
> Agreed.
I always liked Kozel's photos and information (abeit its not my style),
but his attitude towards others has got to go.
John David Galt
Yassa, Massa! Sieg Heil! :b
An Hour of Art College
[snip]
>
> I always liked Kozel's photos and information (abeit its not my style) [I.E.: bland PHP hahahahaha!],
> but his attitude towards others has got to go.
>
Where's it gonna go?
--
Comrade Mister "Uncivil Engineering Professor" Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com/
"The left is a parody of resistance"
Magyar
>
>>It just comes naturally to a liberal fascist like yourself.
Liberal Fascist?!
Boy, that raises your credibility about -100 points.
Find a dictionary before you try using words you don't know anything about
like....any noun that describes a political affiliation.
--
Sandor Gulyas
Graduate Student - Louisiana St. University
Dept. of Geography & Anthropology
"Many people talking
But a mighty few people know"
-- Alick "Rice" Miller (aka Sunny Boy Williamson [II]) from Dissatisfied
Arif Khokar
Alan Stevens
>
> in article 1guepro.2m15jyeu7lh4N%re_jo...@hotmail.com, RJ at
> re_jo...@hotmail.com wrote on 4/2/05 4:50 PM:
>
> > william lynch <x@y.z> wrote:
> >
> >> in article 1112466788.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
Alan
> >> Stevens at awst...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/2/05 10:33 AM:
> >>
> >>> screed, just assertion. Is it any wonder why the Democrats
continue to
> >>> lose national elections?
> >>
> >> That's a direct cause-and-effect from the erosion of the
educational
> >> system. The repubs know that a stupider electorate is more likely
> >> to vote repub.
> >
> > Yeah, that's a good way to change people's minds. Call them
stupid.
>
> We only need to change two or three percent.
Calling them "stupid" is not going to change the opinion of the two or
three percent, if anything it will widen the gap even further.
Tropicsprite
> Boy, that raises your credibility about -100 points.
> Find a dictionary before you try using words you don't know anything about
> like....any noun that describes a political affiliation.
Actually, "Liberal Fascist" is possible..it's called Soviet Communism....the
concept of using forced totalitarianism (fascism) to enforce ultra-left wing
dogma of socialist philosophies (ending the ownership of property, the rule
of the working class, etc etc etc).
There is one primary, fundamental flaw with communism - it ignores the
dominance of human ambition. Once a person is in power, he generally does
what he can to consolidate that power so as to survive and prosper,
regardless of the outcome. Those who pontificate about the joys of a
classless society never like to address the fact that when a group of people
come to power, they often subjugate the class that they resent, creating yet
another "ruling class."
Tropicsprite
> any more. He has no one to answer to.
>
Nor did Bill Clinton...oh that's right...he was OBSESSED with a "legacy",
hence his decision to attack Serbia during the Lewinsky scandal.
Not to play tit-for-tat, but that's what right-wingers would say.
You both need to stop sipping the happy juice!
Tropicsprite
> > system. The repubs know that a stupider electorate is more likely
> > to vote repub.
>
> Calling the majority of the electorate "stupid" is just another sign of
> diseased liberal thinking that will turn off even more voters in future
> elections. You're not going to win elections that way.
Actually, a close friend of mine who is a Democratic lobbyist in the State
of Florida said it best one time (and had me laughing hard!)
"You're damn right we don't want people getting smarter....think of what
would happen to welfare and entitlements if people suddenly realized 'hey!
I don't actually NEED government to save me' I'd be out of a job, for one!"
Tropicsprite
>
> Yassa, Massa! Sieg Heil! :b
I refer to my previous post, boneheads!
Tropicsprite
US 71
"Tropicsprite" <jguz...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eq34e.27308$Pc.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> It's all Machiavellian politics...win at any cost....
>
Yup. That's why Tom Delay has Texas redistricted.
Magyar
I appreciate the effort here, but Liberal or Communist-Fascist still doesn't
exist. I had that explained to me by my dad when I was in High School when
I used that term to describe George Orwell's 1984.
What you don't understand is that Lenin ended up trashing Marx's Communist
Manifesto (BTW, have you read that pamphlet by Marx? It wouldn't hurt if
you want to continue this discussion) to legitimize his hold on power.
Communism was to take hold in the industrial west in the 19th Century, not
the agrarian east (Russia & China) in the 20th Century. Thus all the
problems you associate with communism came to be because of Lenin & Mao
forcing the series of events that occur that would lead to a communist
society naturally, to come unnaturally (thus all the horrible policies those
two devised against their people).
There will always be subjugated classes who resent the ruling class. That's
why I resent our current president.
Garrett Wollman
>I appreciate the effort here, but Liberal or Communist-Fascist still doesn't
>exist.
Well, "liberal fascist" (or even "liberal communist") *definitionally*
cannot exist, since liberalism is defined by opposition to
totalitarianism. (Classically, that's the difference between
liberalism and progressivism: the liberals were the anti-Communists,
and the progressives were the ones who felt they could cooperate with
the Communists.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
RJ
And we all know that Democrats never gerrymander a state redistricting.
Except when they have the chance; other than that, never.
--
RJ
k_f...@lycos.com
Gemerally speaking, we haven't seen Dems try to do it twice in a
decade. GOP tried here in CO as well as in TX, but here it was declared
unconstituitional.
Robert Cruickshank
Dems have definitely discussed trying it - there was talk of making an
attempt to pull it off in Illinois recently. But the Dems decided to try
and keep to the high road on this issue, and I won't speculate as to
whether that's the right strategy or not.
Arnold is also talking about it in CA - but his proposal is a bit more
acceptable, as he'd have an impartial judges' panel draw the lines, as
is currently done here in WA State. But not much has come of this yet,
mostly because Arnold is busy sending his goons to harass and intimidate
average citizens in dept. store parking lots in the name of gathering
petition signatures.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive
RJ
> RJ wrote:
> > US 71 <us...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tropicsprite" <jguz...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eq34e.27308$Pc.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > > It's all Machiavellian politics...win at any cost....
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yup. That's why Tom Delay has Texas redistricted.
> >
> > And we all know that Democrats never gerrymander a state
> redistricting.
> > Except when they have the chance; other than that, never.
>
> Gemerally speaking, we haven't seen Dems try to do it twice in a
> decade.
Oh, please. Eastern Dems take no prisoners. Ever.
--
RJ
RJ
> Thus all the
> problems you associate with communism came to be because of Lenin & Mao
> forcing the series of events that occur that would lead to a communist
> society naturally, to come unnaturally
No, the problems with communism all stem from its denial of basic human
nature.
--
RJ
k_f...@lycos.com
When and where did they try to undo a reapportionment plan already
legally in place following a decennial census?
RJ
When has redistricting ever been anything but filthy politics at their
worst? It is *always* a naked power grab, and the holier than thou
position of the Texas Dems is worth nothing more than a laugh, when you
look at their own work in the field.
Wanna fix it? Get partisan politics out of it. Except that the forced
minority-majority districts make rational geographic coverage
impossible. Thanks to the Dems.
--
RJ
Magyar
news:1guidq8.1ac9y3c19hn3usN%re_jo...@hotmail.com...
Enlighten us. Name one example.
> --
> RJ
Magyar
And what is "basic human nature?"
> --
> RJ
John Lansford
A few years ago NC Republicans redistricted the state to put two of
their own in Congress. One of the districts was literally the width of
I-85 in places, and ran halfway across the state. Courts threw it out,
but they just adjusted it slightly and did it again.
John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
RJ
> "RJ" <re_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1guidsa.jn74kh6qhsj7N%re_jo...@hotmail.com...
> > Magyar <sgu...@lsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Thus all the
> >> problems you associate with communism came to be because of Lenin & Mao
> >> forcing the series of events that occur that would lead to a communist
> >> society naturally, to come unnaturally
> >
> > No, the problems with communism all stem from its denial of basic human
> > nature.
>
> And what is "basic human nature?"
You don't know?
--
RJ
OGT '92
Good post. It's refreshing to see intelligent political commentary on this
group rather than the "DEMONKRAPS ARE KOMUNIZTS" crap you tend to see here.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
k_f...@lycos.com
Soooo, I take it from your avoidance of the question that you actually
did *not* have an example in which Democrats did what the Republicans
did, which was to throw out (or attempt to throw out, in the case of
CO) an already legally adopted, in-place reapportionment plan following
the Census, in order to ram through a second plan? That was the
question and the example at hand regarding DeLay's actions with the TX
re-re-districting.
RJ
How else could they counter the 1991 Dem gerrymandering that delivered a
majority of districts with Dem majorities in a state with a substantial
Rep majority?
While retaining the sacred cows of majority-minority districts?
--
RJ
US 71
Do the Dems call the cops if the Repubs refuse to play?
k_f...@lycos.com
Again, I take it you have no real example to back up your original
statement? Here, you merely refer to a legal and proper reapportionment
put in place but for which you didn't like the outcome. The issue is,
when did the Democrats ever undertake a *second,* post-facto,
re-re-districting afer a decennial Census. Rather than back it up, you
change the subject.
william lynch
shan...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/4/05 4:14 PM:
Don't paint such a rosy picture of the Führernator's plans. The
"impartial" judges panel was invoked in 91, after Pete Wilson vetoed
both plans submitted by the legislature. This group of judges were
100% white, male and over 60, and in a state with a strong edge to the
Democrats in voter registration, they drew 33 of the 52 congressional
districts to favor the republicans. They played similar games with
the state assembly and senate. It then blew up in their faces, when
by the end of the decade, the Democrats had won 32 of the 52
congressional seats, 52 of the 80 assembly seats and 27 of 40 in the
state senate.
This plan by that moron is just an attempt to circumvent the will of
the people. Fortunately they are having trouble getting the signatures.
william lynch
jguz...@tampabay.rr.com wrote on 4/3/05 9:26 PM:
There was nothing remotely liberal about the Soviet regime, other
than some lip service towards collectivization.
John David Galt
> than some lip service towards collectivization.
Quite true. But there are a lot of things Soviet about the people
who've misappropriated the word "liberal" from 1929 to the present.
And many of them are quite fascist.
H.B. Elkins
>A few years ago NC Republicans redistricted the state to put two of
>their own in Congress. One of the districts was literally the width of
>I-85 in places, and ran halfway across the state. Courts threw it out,
>but they just adjusted it slightly and did it again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Democrats did that to ensure a
minority-dominated district.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
RJ
RJ
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:15:32 -0400, John Lansford wrote:
>
> >A few years ago NC Republicans redistricted the state to put two of
> >their own in Congress. One of the districts was literally the width of
> >I-85 in places, and ran halfway across the state. Courts threw it out,
> >but they just adjusted it slightly and did it again.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Democrats did that to ensure a
> minority-dominated district.
I believe you are right.
--
RJ
H.B. Elkins
>> Oh, please. Eastern Dems take no prisoners. Ever.
>
>Enlighten us. Name one example.
I'll give you an example.
In Kentucky in the 1990s, the rising star in Democratic politics was Donald
Blandford. He was the speaker of the House in the state legislature. He was from
the Owensboro area. At the time, Kentucky had seven congressional districts and
the west-central part of the state was represented by longtime Democratic
Congressman William H. Natcher (the one the Green River Parkway was renamed for
because he had not missed a vote since Noah built the Ark). Natcher was from
Bowling Green.
After the 1990 census, Kentucky lost a seat. The Democrats still controlled the
legislature and were pushing Blandford to replace Natcher when Natcher either
died or retired. The only problem was that this required Bowling Green and
Owensboro to be in the same Congressional district. Logically, with the state
losing a seat, this was not feasible geographically. So the Democrats in the
state legislature tried to kill two birds with one stone. They ran the First
District (the one out in far western Kentucky) along the Tennessee border
counties all the way to the Appalachian mountains to keep Owensboro out of the
westernmost district and group it with Bowling Green. Many of those counties
were in the old Fifth District, in the south-central and southeast part of the
state, which was heavily GOP and represented by Hal Rogers (the one the Daniel
Boone Parkway was renamed for). Those counties were replaced by many heavily
Democratic counties in the far eastern part of Kentucky. The idea was to move
Blandford into Natcher's seat and have Rogers beaten by a Democrat from the
mountains.
Their move backfired. Blandford went to federal prison for taking bribes, and
when Natcher died a Republican from Elizabethtown (Ron Lewis) won that seat. The
heir apparent to the Eastern Kentucky seat, Chris Perkins (son of longtime
Democratic Congressman Carl D. Perkins, the one the KY 8 Spur-OH 852 bridge is
named after), also got in legal trouble and Hal Rogers started winning election
in his new district with no credible opposition.
So now if you look at a Congressional district map of Kentucky and wonder why
the First District runs all the way from the Mississippi River to the
Appalachians in a swath one county deep along the Tennessee border, you know
why. It was a blatant gerrymander attempt by the state's Democrats that was
foiled by the handpicked Natcher successor's legal problems.
Magyar
I want to hear your version so I can compare it to mine, and anyone else I
want to ask in Baton Rouge.
I'd be curious as to who would be the outlier; myself or you.
k_f...@lycos.com
You keep responding to your off-the-point misdirection. The poster to
whom you initially responded above was criticizing the Tom
DeLay-inspired *second* reapportionment, which the GOP also tried
unsuccessfully here in CO. Gerrymandering, to him, wasn't the point.
All reapportionment in some sense is a political tug of war in which
some precincts are put in or out and to some extent stretched for some
political advantage. Both parties do that if they can.
The point here was the attempt --declared unconstitutional here in CO
but which proceeded in TX -- to do an unprecedented *second* redrawing
of the lines that earlier had been properly and legally accepted for
the initial post-Census congressional elections in 2002.
It was for *that,* and not for the routine decennial redistricting
hijinks, that I was asking you whether you had an earlier precedent
that the DeLay Strategy, since your response appeared to indicate that
Dems might also have done the same thing.
You said they do it whenever they have the chance; I'm saying they've
had probably hundreds of chances in state legislatures in which they've
had the majority over the decades to redraw legally adopted lines a
second time, yet I am unaware that they've ever availed themselves of
that opportunity. It's very possible my observation is incorrect since
I haven't researched every state every year. That's why I asked you if
you could back it up, but you only have replied off the point with the
fact that all parties try to gerrymander. I agree -- but still, I
believe, they've only done it within the earlier accepted rules that
you only do it once every 10 years, after the Census.
But do you know of any precedent for what DeLay did in TX, which was to
tear up a legally adopted plan albeit one whose outcome you don't like,
and force through a second one well after the 2002 elections?
william lynch
re_jo...@hotmail.com wrote on 4/5/05 6:38 AM:
This was after the courts rejected the carefully crafted white-only plan,
citing violations of the voting rights act and the 14th amendment.
william lynch
re_jo...@hotmail.com wrote on 4/5/05 6:29 AM:
Why is that improper?
k_f...@lycos.com
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:51:54 -0500, Magyar wrote:
>
> >> Oh, please. Eastern Dems take no prisoners. Ever.
> >
> >Enlighten us. Name one example.
>
> I'll give you an example.
(snip)
Interesting story but not an example that demonstrates the point of the
question. In fact, it's the opposite and you better demonstrated
Magyar's point than RJ's. An example of "Eastern Dems take no
prisoners. Ever" would be a instance in which the Dems came out
inexorably on top through all these maneuverings by dominating the
election results. But in your example, they tried and failed, so you
actually demonstrated the *failure* of the Dems to "take no prisoners."
Plus, I don't regard Kentucky as eastern. ;-)
sit...@aol.com
reason why oil moguls will get away with what they're doing. You're
drunk on complacency. You're pathetic. Big Business can do whatever it
desires because it meets no opposition.
Europe's gas prices are high, true, but they have this convenient
little alternative called public transportation. Europeans don't have
to dig into their wallets to pay an arm and a leg to drive back and
forth from work. Where are our trains, tubes and buses? I certainly
don't see any around here in rural TN. At least Europe's tax dollars
go somewhere.
I'm not complaining. I think it is justifible, for the fact that
> Americans are too dependent on cars and we have grown a culture
around
> them. I find it laughable that we complain about $2.11 gas prices
when
> we pay higher prices for similar quantities for bottled water and so
> forth. Take a drive around in Europe or S. Korea, where I have been
> both, and observe their $4-5 / gal price ranges.
>
Sherman Cahal wrote:
> sith...@aol.com wrote:
> > I don't buy "increasing demand" as an excuse to jack fuel prices
> > up...the worst thing about this outrage is most motorists don't
seem
> to
> > mind that they're getting ass-fucked every time they pump their
SUVs
> > full of regular unleaded at Joe's Quicki Mart.
>
> Actually, anyone who has taken an advanced economics course will know
> that when a future price increase is expected (which will occur) and
> you have an increase in quantity (summer demand), then the price will
> go up to meet the demand. It is refered to as a Demand Shifter, as
the
> demand shifts to the right parallel to the X-axis, and not up.
>
> You also have a greater demand for gasoline in the summer (and when
> warmer weather hits) than in the winter. The increase in demand
during
> these warmer periods means a higher price and a greater quantity,
> ceteris paribus.
>
> Taking a look at an equilbrium graph: Your winter equilibrium
reflects
> a much lower price and a much lower demand versus your summer
> equilibrium price.
>
> If demand increases and supply stays unchanged, then the equilibrium
> quantity rises and the equilibrium price increases. If demand
> equilibrium and supply increases, the equilibrium increase and the
> equilibrium price is indeterminate. If demand increases and supply
> decreases, then the equilibrium quantity is indeterminate and the
> equilibrium price increases.
>
> > Statistics show that traffic hasn't been impacted by this crap. Am
I
> > the only one who's pissed off about this thievery of America's
> > pocketbooks? I used to be a substitute teacher and would have to
> > travel all over Tennessee from school to school. The fuel prices
were
> > killing me; I ended up coughing out $100 a week and that was just
for
> a
> > Ford Focus.
>
> I'm not complaining. I think it is justifible, for the fact that
> Americans are too dependent on cars and we have grown a culture
around
> them. I find it laughable that we complain about $2.11 gas prices
when
> we pay higher prices for similar quantities for bottled water and so
> forth. Take a drive around in Europe or S. Korea, where I have been
> both, and observe their $4-5 / gal price ranges.
>
> > As of now I don't pay for gasoline. I pump and drive away...it's
> quite
> > an efficient maneuver, kind of reminiscent of the colonies dumping
> > overpriced tea into the Boston Harbor. I just refuse to relinquish
> my
> > hard-earned funds for outlandish gas prices for the benefit of
greedy
> > fuel moguls who are profiting from my misery. If America won't
> > protest, I will. At this point, oil companies have gotten America
> > brainwashed to appreciate $1.90 gas prices. $1.90 is high enough,
> but
> > $2.20 for regular unleaded? No, I don't pay such exorbitant fees
> just
> > to drive to work and back. Until then, I'll pump and drive.
>
> Then I hope you get caught and be forced to pay back thousands upon
> thousands for your illegial efforts. You and the rest of your sick
> minded "run offs" increase the prices for everybody.
John Lansford
>On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:15:32 -0400, John Lansford wrote:
>
>>A few years ago NC Republicans redistricted the state to put two of
>>their own in Congress. One of the districts was literally the width of
>>I-85 in places, and ran halfway across the state. Courts threw it out,
>>but they just adjusted it slightly and did it again.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Democrats did that to ensure a
>minority-dominated district.
I believe the initial gerrymander was done by the Republicans. Only
after a court order threw it out did the Democrats get a stab at it.