How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump?

[HAL 9000 96]

If you are willing to sustain the current rate of overconsumption by our population then you shouldn't have any problem in helping the other 95% raise themselves to our rate.

I'm not too worried about that -- the other 95% will never catch up with us. Things will keep

getting more and more expensive, but we are better equipped financially to bear the grunt

of economic pressures caused by rising population and dwindling natural resources.

And I agree with that observation.

Where we differ, though, will be in how we decide to be more global players. I honestly believe we will eventually break out of the old mold of consuming what comes from elsewhere just because we can, since its already catching up with us.

[yogib37 3]

I dont see how you can blame the Democrats on the rise of gas prices. It has gotten out of control since Bush took office.

here is a chart I looked up since Bush took office. Gas prices since 2000 to present.

I changed it to a link

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html

yogi

[GaryC 7]

I dont see how you can blame the Democrats on the rise of gas prices. It has gotten out of control since Bush took office.

here is a chart I looked up since Bush took office. Gas prices since 2000 to present.

I changed it to a link

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html

yogi

What your forgetting is that this administration has been trying to increase our domestic energy production but has met with resistance from the dems and the enviro special interest groups.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I dont see how you can blame the Democrats on the rise of gas prices. It has gotten out of control since Bush took office.

here is a chart I looked up since Bush took office. Gas prices since 2000 to present.

I changed it to a link

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html

yogi

What your forgetting is that this administration has been trying to increase our domestic energy production but has met with resistance from the dems and the enviro special interest groups.

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

[GaryC 7]

That's just bizarre Gary. You would rather obsess over a metaphor than consider the implications of the headlong consumption of non renewables.

Words mean things PH. His choice was interesting. I think it says something of his opinion of our country.

And I asked you, what do those words mean, genius?

Other than the obvious, of course... we are overconsuming our lot, and its having bad side effects at all levels.

You can say we are over consuming if you like. That may be a valid point. But to call us leaches does say something about your opinion of us.

Simple math, Gary-

5% of any population consuming 25% of its habitat's resources means that 95% of the rest of the population will have to contend with 75% of the resources. That makes the 5% pretty much a leech population. If that offends you then perhaps you should be doing something to act more consonant with what you need to consume instead of overdoing it.

And of course, it is a bad metaphor. A leech can only suck until its saturated. Far less than the 5% to 25% ratio.

Tell you what Mav, set an example for all of us. Give up your car, central heat, air conditioning, move into a studio apartment, give up your TV, give up your computer, grow all your own food and then come back and pass judgment on the rest of us.

*sound of brain hitting wall*

And that would solve?

Or, we could all act more accordingly to bringing down the ratio to more "need-based" levels.

But since you seem to want to overreach, I'll remind you that there are choices, and since I don't know what yours are to this point beyond making completely ludicrous and inaccurate comments and conclusions, that I myself walk/bike/bus to work, drive a car that gives me 41/38 mpg, seal my windows in the winter (no, we did not need to use HVAC), open the windows and use ceiling fans in the summer, living in a size-appropriate apartment, use an energy-efficient TV with a high Star rating, and only when I actually want to watch TV, buy locally grown produce at Stanley's (and I would grow some things if I had the space outside), and generally act like I give a damn about fools that refuse to act in a matter consonant with the amount of consumption that is required to be happy. Not inflatedly happy... just happy.

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I dont see how you can blame the Democrats on the rise of gas prices. It has gotten out of control since Bush took office.

here is a chart I looked up since Bush took office. Gas prices since 2000 to present.

I changed it to a link

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html

yogi

What your forgetting is that this administration has been trying to increase our domestic energy production but has met with resistance from the dems and the enviro special interest groups.

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

Your facts are wrong though.

[rika60607 215]

It is interesting to see how Gary ignores the three posts which logically explain why drilling in Alaska is not going to help reduce gas prices as much as equivalent oil production by Saudis...

Yet he is so active to put the blame for gas prices on whomever and to have a political argument...

Hmmm...

And I thought this topic was about gas prices

Well,

Gas prices in Europe are $8.00 - 12.00. USA has it easy. If you think Democrats are responsible for gas prices - well may be you should thank them

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

Your facts are wrong though.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[HAL 9000 96]

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

[GaryC 7]

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

So what is your "target" then? 20%? 15%? What are you willing to give up to acheve that?

[HAL 9000 96]

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

So what is your "target" then? 20%? 15%? What are you willing to give up to acheve that?

Like I said, Gary... I have already given things up and am doing quite well along the "commodity" scope of things.

As for target... read my previous post a little more carefully... I think its pretty "targeted" in itself.

[GaryC 7]

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

Your facts are wrong though.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You missed the point alltogether. Not surprising though. We cannot even LOOK for oil up there. Who knows what else is there? ANWR isn't the only place that we are restricted from also. There are proven oil fields off our coasts that are off limits. The dems will not let us go for that either. The point is we can reduce our dependance on imported oil if we were able to drill where we know it is and be able to look for it in other places. The current supply problem may not be solved with out domestic supplies but it would help.

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

So what is your "target" then? 20%? 15%? What are you willing to give up to acheve that?

Like I said, Gary... I have already given things up and am doing quite well along the "commodity" scope of things.

As for target... read my previous post a little more carefully... I think its pretty "targeted" in itself.

Ok, a non answer. Typical for your side.

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you really see the world in terms of 'sides' Gary?

With the demand for oil increasing world wide, does it occur to you that even if these domestic oil fields were opened up, the price of gas would still be going up? As I understand it, we are paying higher prices at the pumps even though the gas reserves have been high in the US and that the gas in the pumps was bought and paid for before the price hikes so I don't really have this great faith that gas prices are ever going to go down substantially.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

Your facts are wrong though.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You missed the point alltogether. Not surprising though. We cannot even LOOK for oil up there. Who knows what else is there? ANWR isn't the only place that we are restricted from also. There are proven oil fields off our coasts that are off limits. The dems will not let us go for that either. The point is we can reduce our dependance on imported oil if we were able to drill where we know it is and be able to look for it in other places. The current supply problem may not be solved with out domestic supplies but it would help.

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

So what is your "target" then? 20%? 15%? What are you willing to give up to acheve that?

Like I said, Gary... I have already given things up and am doing quite well along the "commodity" scope of things.

As for target... read my previous post a little more carefully... I think its pretty "targeted" in itself.

Ok, a non answer. Typical for your side.

Well you have to be pretty retarded to not be able to read what I posted above:

(I'll hold your hand on this one, something "my side" has to do with the more reading-challenged members of "whatever it is to be on your side")

"But since you seem to want to overreach, I'll remind you that there are choices, and since I don't know what yours are to this point beyond making completely ludicrous and inaccurate comments and conclusions, that I myself walk/bike/bus to work, drive a car that gives me 41/38 mpg, seal my windows in the winter (no, we did not need to use HVAC), open the windows and use ceiling fans in the summer, living in a size-appropriate apartment, use an energy-efficient TV with a high Star rating, and only when I actually want to watch TV, buy locally grown produce at Stanley's (and I would grow some things if I had the space outside), and generally act like I give a damn about fools that refuse to act in a matter consonant with the amount of consumption that is required to be happy. Not inflatedly happy... just happy."

No specifics because I do not have an actual number as to what magical number it takes to keep our curent population satiated without it being obese resource wise.

[GaryC 7]

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

Your facts are wrong though.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You missed the point alltogether. Not surprising though. We cannot even LOOK for oil up there. Who knows what else is there? ANWR isn't the only place that we are restricted from also. There are proven oil fields off our coasts that are off limits. The dems will not let us go for that either. The point is we can reduce our dependance on imported oil if we were able to drill where we know it is and be able to look for it in other places. The current supply problem may not be solved with out domestic supplies but it would help.

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

So what is your "target" then? 20%? 15%? What are you willing to give up to acheve that?

Like I said, Gary... I have already given things up and am doing quite well along the "commodity" scope of things.

As for target... read my previous post a little more carefully... I think its pretty "targeted" in itself.

Ok, a non answer. Typical for your side.

Well you have to be pretty retarded to not be able to read what I posted above:

(I'll hold your hand on this one, something "my side" has to do with the more reading-challenged members of "whatever it is to be on your side")

"But since you seem to want to overreach, I'll remind you that there are choices, and since I don't know what yours are to this point beyond making completely ludicrous and inaccurate comments and conclusions, that I myself walk/bike/bus to work, drive a car that gives me 41/38 mpg, seal my windows in the winter (no, we did not need to use HVAC), open the windows and use ceiling fans in the summer, living in a size-appropriate apartment, use an energy-efficient TV with a high Star rating, and only when I actually want to watch TV, buy locally grown produce at Stanley's (and I would grow some things if I had the space outside), and generally act like I give a damn about fools that refuse to act in a matter consonant with the amount of consumption that is required to be happy. Not inflatedly happy... just happy."

No specifics because I do not have an actual number as to what magical number it takes to keep our curent population satiated without it being obese resource wise.

I read all that. It still doesn't tell me what "target" you want to reach. You keep posting that our 5% of the worlds population leaches 25% of the resources. My question is what do you think is acceptable so we are no longer the leaches of the world.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think you missed this nugget of facts about drilling in ANWR...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1866660

Your facts are wrong though.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You missed the point alltogether. Not surprising though. We cannot even LOOK for oil up there. Who knows what else is there? ANWR isn't the only place that we are restricted from also. There are proven oil fields off our coasts that are off limits. The dems will not let us go for that either. The point is we can reduce our dependance on imported oil if we were able to drill where we know it is and be able to look for it in other places. The current supply problem may not be solved with out domestic supplies but it would help.

You keep bringing up the fact that our population represents 5% of the world but we consume 25% of the resources. That implies that you want us to reduce our consumption to 5%. That means we give up all those things mentioned.

Show us how serious you are Mav.

I think I already gave you, Gary, a general description of how I support not overconsuming.

And as for reducing our consumption rate... sure. Does that mean that we will go to 5%? Of course not. At what point can we consider ourselves satiated before considering ourselves obese? The answer is not a 25% consumption rate for 5% of the population. Anything below 25% consumption means more resources to consume over a longer period of time. Common sense.

So what is your "target" then? 20%? 15%? What are you willing to give up to acheve that?

Like I said, Gary... I have already given things up and am doing quite well along the "commodity" scope of things.

As for target... read my previous post a little more carefully... I think its pretty "targeted" in itself.

Ok, a non answer. Typical for your side.

Well you have to be pretty retarded to not be able to read what I posted above:

(I'll hold your hand on this one, something "my side" has to do with the more reading-challenged members of "whatever it is to be on your side")

"But since you seem to want to overreach, I'll remind you that there are choices, and since I don't know what yours are to this point beyond making completely ludicrous and inaccurate comments and conclusions, that I myself walk/bike/bus to work, drive a car that gives me 41/38 mpg, seal my windows in the winter (no, we did not need to use HVAC), open the windows and use ceiling fans in the summer, living in a size-appropriate apartment, use an energy-efficient TV with a high Star rating, and only when I actually want to watch TV, buy locally grown produce at Stanley's (and I would grow some things if I had the space outside), and generally act like I give a damn about fools that refuse to act in a matter consonant with the amount of consumption that is required to be happy. Not inflatedly happy... just happy."

No specifics because I do not have an actual number as to what magical number it takes to keep our curent population satiated without it being obese resource wise.

I read all that. It still doesn't tell me what "target" you want to reach. You keep posting that our 5% of the worlds population leaches 25% of the resources. My question is what do you think is acceptable so we are no longer the leaches of the world.

And I also wrote that pretty clearly above. If I had that magical number don't you think I would have stated so already? 5%/25% is fairly well know. Anything that decreases that ratio is mathematically sensical to increase the resource allocation on a planetary basis, no?