"Gas prices sinking - fill 'er up!" (America, the superficial)

In article >, Eeyore wrote:

>> I suggest you start paying closer attention then, because the actual
>> agenda is central planning.

> You really are getting close to being a conspiracy loon
> Do you wear a tin-foil hat too ? Do you live in fear of the black helicopters ?

I see you have chosen insult as your route.

You're in the UK right? Having fun with government tracking everywhere
you go with number plate reading cameras? How about the government's
desire to collect revenue from bicyclists in London now that people have
picked up using bicycles to avoid the taxes on driving? How is that
national ID card thing working out?

Pay attention to the world around you. The home office has your best
interests at heart doesn't it?

>> >> taking over every aspect of our lives under the excuse that it has
>> >> to manage energy usage.
>>
>> > Quality of life has zilch to do with so-called 'standard of living'which is about
>> > trivial stuff like how much you earn/own.
>>
>> Ask the guy living in van down by the river if he senses a difference.
>
> What's that got to do with it ?

Everything.

>> > If ppl started paying more attention to the quality of their lives the the world (
>> > well.. mainly the USA ) might be a happier place.
>>
>> Welcome to the MFFY planet. Been here long?

> Surely the MFFYs are those with a good 'standard of living' ?

Judging by their vehicles, many don't.

RETARDED Lander stopped watching network tv to write:

> That ABC Good Morning America caption (9/12/06) illustrates the chronic
> shallowness of Americans.

Bhawwwwawwaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaa!!!

IRONY, retarded lander.

LOOK IT UP!!!

Too ****ing funny!!!


Bhawaawaaaaaaawwwwwwwaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Eeyore wrote:
>
> >> I suggest you start paying closer attention then, because the actual
> >> agenda is central planning.
>
> > You really are getting close to being a conspiracy loon
> > Do you wear a tin-foil hat too ? Do you live in fear of the black helicopters ?
>
> I see you have chosen insult as your route.
>
> You're in the UK right? Having fun with government tracking everywhere
> you go with number plate reading cameras?

The sytem doesn't actually have that capability.

It's targeted on known criminals.


> How about the government's
> desire to collect revenue from bicyclists in London now that people have
> picked up using bicycles to avoid the taxes on driving?

Uh ? What joke US publication did you get that idea from ?


> How is that national ID card thing working out?

There isn't one.

Graham

In article >, Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> >> I suggest you start paying closer attention then, because the actual
>> >> agenda is central planning.
>>
>> > You really are getting close to being a conspiracy loon
>> > Do you wear a tin-foil hat too ? Do you live in fear of the black helicopters ?
>>
>> I see you have chosen insult as your route.
>>
>> You're in the UK right? Having fun with government tracking everywhere
>> you go with number plate reading cameras?
>
> The sytem doesn't actually have that capability.

It reads number plates, tracking is just storage in a database. There is
no capability issue. The scanned numbers only need be stored with a
time stamp. I'm sure the UK's government can afford some hard disk drives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4372809.stm

"The system scans car number plates and checks these against records from
the DVLA, the Police National Computer and local intelligence computer
systems."

> It's targeted on known criminals.

That's what they always say.

So is the US war on drugs, yet anyone with 'too much cash' looses it if
a cop sees it and decides it's 'too much'.

>> How about the government's
>> desire to collect revenue from bicyclists in London now that people have
>> picked up using bicycles to avoid the taxes on driving?

> Uh ? What joke US publication did you get that idea from ?

BBC as I recall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/5225346.stm

Mayor mulls bicycle number plates
Number plates for bicycles are being considered by the mayor in a bid to
improve cycling standards.

Ken Livingstone believes bicycles and their owners should be registered
so that law-breakers can be caught.

He was responding to a plea from a listener on a live radio phone-in
show, who wanted cyclists off pavements.

The RAC Foundation and British Cycling, the sports' governing body, said
the proposal was "impractical, bureaucratic and dangerous".


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...352871,00.html
new bell epoch for cyclists

After Ken Livingstone.s bizarre proposal to make number-plates
compulsory on bicycles, I guessed that it wouldn.t be long before our
nannying Government got in on the act. Sure enough the Transport
Minister, one Stephen Ladyman, is now threatening a public consultation
on the pressing matter of whether bells should be made mandatory on
bikes, citing the imminent .harmonisation. of .European standards. as
justification for this waste of Civil Service time and public money.

When pedalling down a path designated for both cyclists and pedestrians,
I usually shout .ding ding. as I come up behind people on foot.
Admittedly they often respond by muttering .you complete prat. as I
whizz past. Nevertheless, they do get out of the way. Hearing the
annoying ting-a-ling of a bell, I suggest, would only antagonise them
further.


>> How is that national ID card thing working out?

> There isn't one.

Not quite yet....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4856074.stm

Deal paves the way for ID cards

The way has been cleared for the introduction of identity cards after
weeks of parliamentary wrangling.

MPs have approved a compromise drawn up by the government, after the
Lords repeatedly blocked the scheme.

Anyone who renews a passport will be put on a national ID database - but
will not now be forced to have an ID card until 2010, instead of 2008.

<...>

----------------
I've learned one thing, those now called 'conspiracy nuts' are those who
are paying attention to what's going on. Those calling them that, aren't.

"Eeyore" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> >> Peak Oil? That ain't sheep you're hearing; that's Chicken Little.
>>
>> > This is such a great example of pathetically muddled American thinking that it
>> > deserves a wider audience !
>>
>> Peak oil is fraud, artifical scarcity in the name of profits. Should be
>> using oil is a different question, but there is no shortage of oil at
>> todays prices.
>
> You reckon oil production can continue to rise indefinitely ?
>
> Graham
>
>
We may just luck out..the oil will run out before we destroy the planet.

R. Lander wrote:
> That ABC Good Morning America caption (9/12/06) illustrates the
> chronic shallowness of Americans. A field reporter was jubilant that
> the price of gas had dropped, and hoping for more of the same. Not
> once did this dingbat mention conservation in her report. Diane
> Sawyer didn't either. Hard working Americans (in an oil-addicted
> economy) are offended by high prices, so let's not upset them with
> talk of restraint. We must keep the economy addicted and growing
> forever, or else.....or else we might have to live sustainably? Don't
> suggest that!
>
> The fact is, $3+/gallon gas has been the only motivation for the
> average fool to conserve fuel and stop buying ego-tanks. Watch as SUV
> sales spike in coming months. These people don't care where oil is
> coming from or what it's doing to the climate, as long as they can
> "fill 'er up!" and go about their self-centered business. They are
> like Pac-Man, eating up whatever oil appears in their path. They show
> little concern for their own life-support systems. Do they think
> money creates energy itself?
>
> If we really want to curb global warming and pollution, shouldn't we
> be somewhat grateful for anything that forces us to do it? The truth
> is, most people only care about their immediate wants. Like bleating
> sheep, they'll try to blame someone else when Peak Oil and climate
> change finally forces them off the road. Mark my words: the masses
> won't act until the fan slings brown matter.
>
> R. Lander


Why is it when I see a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker it is on a gas guzzling
SUV?

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> We can't live "sustainably"; for starters, just to keep consumption
>> near current levels would require zero population growth.
>
>So ?

So, it ain't going to happen.

>> To actually
>> significantly reduce consumption would require that plus serious
>> reductions in the standard of living.
>
>What do you mean by 'standard of living' ? Fewer cars maybe but probably better
>quality of life.

I mean less heat in the winter and no A/C in the summer (to prevent
the use of oil-fired generators). I mean serious restrictions on
travel. I mean high food prices and shortages due to the reduction in
transportation. Forget about luxury foods like citrus fruits, unless
you're very rich.

>> To eliminate the use of oil
>> would require the death of most of the US population.
>
>You're utterly mad. Those 400 pound fatties would get a bit slimmer for sure !

Skeletonized, in fact.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> > What do you mean by 'standard of living' ? Fewer cars maybe but probably better
>> > quality of life.
>>
>> The lower standard/quality of living comes from central planning
>
>******** !
>
>
>> taking
>> over every aspect of our lives under the excuse that it has to manage
>> energy usage.
>
>Quality of life has zilch to do with so-called 'standard of living' which is about
>trivial stuff like how much you earn/own.

Personally I don't find it trivial. Anti-materialism is fine until
you're starving to death under a bridge abutment; then you likely wish you
earned enough to pay for food and shelter. However, if you'd like to
make a few changes, you might start by throwing away your computer and
seeing how it affects your quality of life.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Weinstein said in
rec.autos.driving:
> The US will soon be paying what most of the other industrial
> countries in the world pay for gas. $4.00 to $5.00 per gallon.

If gas gets to $4 to $5 per gallin, most other industrial countries will
probablly be paying $7 to $8 (or more) per gallon. Remember, most of
their gas price is taxes, not oil company profit.

> This is especially true if the Democrats sweep the next
> election.

IMO, I wouldn't mind if the Dems raised the gas tax to about $1 or so a
gallon (with the proceeds going to roads and roads only), especially if
the end result is an acceleration in the development of more efficient
engines and alternative fuels.

--
"You can't spell unethical with out U.N."
--unknown

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

> Weinstein > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >There is NO other way to keep people out of 40 foot motorhomes
> >Hummers and 'hemi powered' cars and trucks. Other than banning
> >personal ownership of large vehicles with large engines, there is
> >NO other way to reduce oil consumption.
>
> Sure there is: raise the price of oil.
>
> Why do you suppose gasoline dropped from $3.50/gallon to $2.85/gallon
> here in SoCal over the last month or two? It's because gas was getting
> so expensive that people were (*GASP!*) actually CUTTING BACK on their
> consumption. This created a surplus and caused prices to drop.

And yet ppl still want to deny the 'law of supply and demand'.

Graham