Automotive Business Talk :: View topic - Which Year windstar 2002 or 2003

Automotive Business Talk
Automotive Business Talk

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Which Year windstar 2002 or 2003
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 63, 64, 65 Next

Automotive Business Talk Forum Index -> Ford

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

David Starr
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:10:18 GMT, "Augustus" <no_one@no_where.net> wrote:

Quote:

"Dont Taze Me, Bro!" <DontTaze@MeBro.com> wrote in message
news:PXD7k.972$9J.3@trnddc06...

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dCn7k.2478$1I.1673@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Price per barrel:

Oil $133
Coca Cola $126
Milk $163
Perrier Water $300
Budweiser $447
Starbucks Latte $954
Ben & Jerry's $1,609
Tabasco Sauce $6,155
Chanel No 5 $1,666,560

I don't see the nations economy and infrastructure running on lattes and
Coke. Or F-22's or M1 Abrams for that matter. Idiot.

Well, the Abrams will run on Chanel No 5, or jack Daniel's, for that matter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

David Starr
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:05:44 -0400, "Cathy F." <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Chanel No 5 $1,666,560

Chanel No. 19 is nicer, anyway. ;-)

Cathy

Printer ink $80,640.00 per 42 gallon barrel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Brian Smith
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:51 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:b8J7k.10954$3F5.5275@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

Quote:

No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted
to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining
product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there
are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be
cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined
from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on
average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume
there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel.

Some of you morons cannot read (no offense).

Okay, I'll rephrase my response to you.

Depending on each individual's requirements, that would last some longer
and others far
less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage
to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel
tank (at today's price).

By the way, you still appear to be a moron.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Ray O
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:b8J7k.10954$3F5.5275@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

Quote:

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:91J7k.866$2G6.26@edtnps83...
I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence
meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on
each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others
far less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I
manage to squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in
the fuel tank (at today's price).

No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if they wanted
to. Instead, they typically make about half that, but the remaining
product produced is jet fuel, heating oil , etc. If you assume that there
are only 21 gallons of gas per barrel, then the cost per barrel should be
cut in half since the other products besides gasoline that are refined
from the same barrel are worth about the same as the gasoline (on
average). I chose to leave the cost of the barrel the same, and assume
there are 42 gallons of gas per barrel.

I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is
economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude oil
because the crude oil has different components with different properties.

These articles seem to confirm this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm

--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Mark A
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it is
economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of crude
oil because the crude oil has different components with different
properties.

These articles seem to confirm this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm

Ray O

I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is
refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21 gallons
of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic value. So
the economic value of the output of the refining process needs to be
distributed among the products produced.

So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of
crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one
half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming that
the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of oil
(including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a lot of
airlines and homeowners).

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Ray O
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_2_7k.11604$PZ6.9198@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Quote:

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:MZudnTyEW9gD9f3VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@comcast.com...
I am not a chemist or expert on refining oil, but I don't think that it
is economically feasible to get 42 gallons of gas from 42 gallons of
crude oil because the crude oil has different components with different
properties.

These articles seem to confirm this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining3.htm

Ray O

I think you are missing the point. When a barrel (42 gallons) of oil is
refined, and it produces 21 gallons of gasoline, it also produces 21
gallons of other refined hydrocarbons with a fairly substantial economic
value. So the economic value of the output of the refining process needs
to be distributed among the products produced.

So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of
crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one
half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming
that the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of
oil (including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a
lot of airlines and homeowners).
That explanation makes a lot more sense.

--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

jim beam
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

Mark A wrote:

Quote:

with just distillation, that would be about right, though it depends on
what's being distilled. however, if we introduce modern hydrocracking
and catalysis, which refiners do in fact use, we can get substantially
more than 21 gallons of gasoline [and a lower quantity of heavier product].

Quote:

So
the economic value of the output of the refining process needs to be
distributed among the products produced.

So if you want to stick with 21 gallons of refined gasoline per barrel of
crude, then you need to cost the barrel of crude at about $68 (about one
half the current price of $136 per barrel). Otherwise you are assuming that
the raw material cost of the other refined products in a barrel of oil
(including jet fuel, fuel oil, etc) is zero (which might surprise a lot of
airlines and homeowners).

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Larry in AZ
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> said:

Quote:

But you said, "No, they can make 42 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil if
they wanted to."

Which is completely false. Now, you're backpeddling.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

RJ
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

"David Starr" <davestarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hu5064hofeh97qat6c1ggn2a97fd34igqq@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:05:44 -0400, "Cathy F."
clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net
wrote:

Chanel No 5 $1,666,560

Chanel No. 19 is nicer, anyway. ;-)

Cathy

Printer ink $80,640.00 per 42 gallon barrel.
Gas at the pump here in the far north $267 per barrel, well actually not

that far north (Saskatchewan)

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

SMS
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

still just me wrote:

Quote:

The President shares much of the blame. He sets the direction. He
carves out the major policies. He controls the agencies that submit
the budgets. When his party is in full control of the Congress (as the
Rep's have been for most of Bush's term) he shares an even larger part
of the blame.

Having a slight majority in congress is often of little benefit since
you can't pass legislation over the president's veto. You really need
both the congress and the presidency to get your legislation through.

What happens when the Republicans have both the presidency and congress
can be seen with the results of the Bush presidency. The biggest
deficits in history, gutting of key environmental legislation, housing
foreclosures, mega-mergers that reduce the competitive environment
driving up prices, huge increases in the cost of basic necessities like
fuel, food, and health care. This is just what Republicans do.

I was just up in Oregon, where the fishing industry is still reeling
from what Bush's interior department did to them by diverting river
water to corporate agriculture (that supported the Republicans
politically), effectively destroying the salmon industry. Now Bush wants
to cut the aid to the salmon farmers from $170 million to $100 million,
in order to use the $70 million to close a funding gap for the 2010
census.
"http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=111503&sid=1&fid=1"
Here's a problem that Bush's policies created, and he then wants to
screw the people that be caused to lose their livelihood.

It's not exaggerating to say that nearly every major problem the U.S.
faces today is due to the policies pushed through by Republican
presidents all the way back to Reagan. If Obama wins the presidency,
he'll inherit a far bigger mess from W, than Clinton inherited from the
Reagan/HW Bush presidencies. Clinton was fairly successful in undoing a
lot of the damage from Reagan/HW, but Obama will have a far more
difficult task ahead of him.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

C. E. White
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:vW98k.12748$mh5.9574@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...

Quote:

still just me wrote:

The President shares much of the blame. He sets the direction. He
carves out the major policies. He controls the agencies that submit
the budgets. When his party is in full control of the Congress (as the
Rep's have been for most of Bush's term) he shares an even larger part
of the blame.

Having a slight majority in congress is often of little benefit since you
can't pass legislation over the president's veto. You really need both the
congress and the presidency to get your legislation through.

What happens when the Republicans have both the presidency and congress
can be seen with the results of the Bush presidency. The biggest deficits
in history, gutting of key environmental legislation, housing
foreclosures, mega-mergers that reduce the competitive environment driving
up prices, huge increases in the cost of basic necessities like fuel,
food, and health care. This is just what Republicans do.

I was just up in Oregon, where the fishing industry is still reeling from
what Bush's interior department did to them by diverting river water to
corporate agriculture (that supported the Republicans politically),
effectively destroying the salmon industry. Now Bush wants to cut the aid
to the salmon farmers from $170 million to $100 million, in order to use
the $70 million to close a funding gap for the 2010 census.
"http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=111503&sid=1&fid=1"
Here's a problem that Bush's policies created, and he then wants to screw
the people that be caused to lose their livelihood.

It's not exaggerating to say that nearly every major problem the U.S.
faces today is due to the policies pushed through by Republican presidents
all the way back to Reagan. If Obama wins the presidency, he'll inherit a
far bigger mess from W, than Clinton inherited from the Reagan/HW Bush
presidencies. Clinton was fairly successful in undoing a lot of the damage
from Reagan/HW, but Obama will have a far more difficult task ahead of
him.

You write as if the Democrats were out of the country for the last 8 years.
As far as I can tell, they are at least as much to blame as the
Republicans - perhaps more so since they are now trying to point fingers and
lay the blame on the other guys.

As for the salmon mess -that is a problem decades in the making - why stop
at Regean - the damning started during FDRs administration. The biggest
difference I see is that the Rebublicans were in office when the
envirowackos finally made a really big stink. Most of the people who want
the damns torn down aren't local to the affected area and won't suffer from
economic losses that will result if the damns are removed but they will have
the satisfaction of knowing they helped save the salmon - well at least the
thought that they might have, or at least they did all they could plus they
managed to push us back towards the stone age by a little bit.

Ed

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Gordon McGrew
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:20:21 GMT, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

Quote:

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i8I7k.10929$3F5.1056@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

There are 42 gallons in barrel of oil. Although only about half of that is
made into gasoline during the refining process, the remaining half is made
into other products that sell for about the same price as gasoline (on
average). So you can either assume that a barrel of oil does produce 42
gallons (they could do that if they wanted to), or the price per barrel
should be cut in half, since the other half of the barrel is made into
other valuable petroleum products.

Assuming we get 42 gallons per barrel and our car averages 25 miles per
gallon, that would be 1050 miles per barrel. That would last me more than
a month. You claim it only lasts 1 day.

Now who is the moron?

I'd have to go with "you" as the answer to that question (no offence
meant <g>). You would only have 21 gallons of gas to use and depending on
each individual's requirements, that would last some longer and others far
less time. Personally, I drive an F-150 crewcab four by four and I manage to
squeeze just about 60 miles out of every $30.00 that I put in the fuel tank
(at today's price).

Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes,
generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and
other merchandise you want and need?

The truth is that per capita consumption of oil in the US is little
more than two barrels a month. A typical family of four would go
through a barrel in about three days.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Peaceful Bill
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

SMS wrote:

Quote:

Maybe a little lesson in gov't is needed....

The agencies are managed by lifetime bureaucrats. These were appointed
/ hired when the programs were created and can't be removed easily. No
president has the authority to completely clean house of all the
lifetime bureaucrats except for "cause". The president also has to fund
the bureaucracy which increases every year. Those budgets must grow to
cover staffing and pay raises. Once a program is established, its
nearly impossible to shut it down.

Quote:

The democrats are controlling congress with an iron fist. If there were
problems, they must carry a significant part of the blame.

More recently, the democrats have proven that they are primarily
interested in critical rhetoric, not action.

By far the biggest budget problems are due to entitlement programs
created by well-meaning but misdirected politicians (mostly democrats).
These programs were used to buy the votes necessary to keep these same
politicians elected and in power (see Chicago politics).

Quote:

What happens when the Republicans have both the presidency and congress
can be seen with the results of the Bush presidency. The biggest
deficits in history, gutting of key environmental legislation, housing
foreclosures, mega-mergers that reduce the competitive environment
driving up prices, huge increases in the cost of basic necessities like
fuel, food, and health care. This is just what Republicans do.

Gutting key environmental legislation? How about the ethanol
requirement pushed by the environmental movement. What a complete
disaster to the food supply and environmental cluster fuck. And how
about MTBF? We just had to have that to clean the environment, right?
Got into the watershed and created massive environmental problems.

And let's NOT forget ANWR. I've been there. Have you? You can't even
find an oil well. Just a pipeline that runs south and a few small
pumping facilities. And how about the extinction of all the caribou by
building that pipeline? The population has gwon quite a bit since the
pipeline was installed. And not necessarily due to the pipeline.

So a lot of the "environmental legislation" legislation has been
bullshit suggestions that aren't thought out very well and MUST have
better scientific fact to back those efforts.

Quote:

The Pacific Northwest salmon "industry" has been in shambles long before
Regan was president. You need to do a little more research and stop
accepting these short-sighted reports. The problems there have a lot
more to do with the damming of just about every major water flow that
salmon used. That river damming effort was directed by FDR. Wasn't he
a Democrat?

Salmon farming is leading to an environmental disaster by introducing
Atlantic salmon into the pacific waters. It has created major problems
in B.C. and threatens salmon runs all along the coast from northern
California to Alaska.

All salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Even if the salmon stocks are one of the five pacific salmon, farming
dilutes the gene pool and will result in damaged to salmon by weakening
the overall population genetics.

You better do a little more study before spewing that kind of crap.

Quote:

Here's a problem that Bush's policies created, and he then wants to
screw the people that be caused to lose their livelihood.

Is this like screwing lumberjacks by taking away their livelihood?

Their livelihood is bordering on an environmental disaster that makes
the Exxon Valdez look like a dog crapping in your backyard?

Quote:

It's not exaggerating to say that nearly every major problem the U.S.
faces today is due to the policies pushed through by Republican
presidents all the way back to Reagan.

But Regan came directly AFTER the VERY WORST president in history. The
country still has not recovered from the Carter years.

Every president since Carter has had to weather the disastrous results
of his term. And he lead the new wave of democratic personal political
corruption which reached its peak under Clinton. Even Bush and Cheney
can't compete with Clinton's personal political corruption.

If Obama wins the presidency,

Quote:

he'll inherit a far bigger mess from W, than Clinton inherited from the
Reagan/HW Bush presidencies. Clinton was fairly successful in undoing a
lot of the damage from Reagan/HW, but Obama will have a far more
difficult task ahead of him.

What damage did Clinton inherit? He got a reasonably stable country
that was in the infancy of a technology explosion. He got to ride that
wave for 7 years until the bubble (which was not of his making) burst.
But don't get the idea that he was really showing a budget surplus.
That was just on paper and based on unrealistic economic projections.

We can't forget that Clinton buried the terrorist threat in legal fights
rather than facing that reality head-on. Sandy Berger sealed the
secrecy by stealing the documents that would have exposed the Clinton
cover-up (just one of many cover-ups by Clinton). You can't treat a war
criminal the same was as a jay-walker.

And he was the ONLY president in history to be impeached. Anybody else
that lies to a grand jury spends serious time behind bars regardless of
the excuse. He left office in disgrace and destroyed a lot of data
during the hand-over period to Bush. Clinton was, and remains an asshole.

And as far as Obama is concerned.... Well, he can't possibly come out
of Chicago politics and be clean. But then McCain isn't that great of
an alternative, either.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Mark A
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: Re: Which Cost More? Oil or ...

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hj9764hihcg54aj7g1asp6psc7r4lmn391@4ax.com...

Quote:

Are you guys factoring in the oil you may use to heat your homes,
generate your electricity and manufacture and deliver the food and
other merchandise you want and need?

Most of those things are done with natural gas or coal, except maybe in the
northeast. Natural gas prices have risen also, although not as much as crude
oil.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Gordon McGrew
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:43 am Post subject: Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:15:39 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:

Quote:

SMS wrote:
still just me wrote:

The President shares much of the blame. He sets the direction. He
carves out the major policies. He controls the agencies that submit
the budgets. When his party is in full control of the Congress (as the
Rep's have been for most of Bush's term) he shares an even larger part
of the blame.

Maybe a little lesson in gov't is needed....

Why don't you get some.

Quote:

The agencies are managed by lifetime bureaucrats. These were appointed
/ hired when the programs were created and can't be removed easily. No
president has the authority to completely clean house of all the
lifetime bureaucrats except for "cause". The president also has to fund
the bureaucracy which increases every year. Those budgets must grow to
cover staffing and pay raises. Once a program is established, its
nearly impossible to shut it down.

Having a slight majority in congress is often of little benefit since
you can't pass legislation over the president's veto. You really need
both the congress and the presidency to get your legislation through.

The democrats are controlling congress with an iron fist. If there were
problems, they must carry a significant part of the blame.

More recently, the democrats have proven that they are primarily
interested in critical rhetoric, not action.

They are controlling with an iron fist but not taking action?

Quote:

By far the biggest budget problems are due to entitlement programs
created by well-meaning but misdirected politicians (mostly democrats).

I would say that the biggest problem is interest on the national debt.
It may be slightly smaller than what we spend on defense and HHS, but
we get nothing for it. The second biggest problem is defense. Still
less than HHS but grossly inflated over what is necessary. We spend
more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Who are we
defending against, Mars? The amount of money we have wasted in Iraq
is atrocious. The interest on that debt alone would cover HUD the
budget.

Quote:

These programs were used to buy the votes necessary to keep these same
politicians elected and in power (see Chicago politics).

So the politicians are well-meaning but misdirected and they are using
the programs to buy votes. Seems like you need to make up your mind.

Under the Republicans, government functions were privatized by giving
(often no-bid) contracts to their corporate buddies. The outcome, not
surprisingly, is that the cost to the government (us) has skyrocketed.
(To be fair, Clinton is partially responsible as well, but then he
often behaved like a Republican.) Waste and fraud as well as high
profits are to blame.

Quote:

When did ADM join the environmental movement? Was is before or after
the executives were convicted of price fixing?

Quote:

What a complete
disaster to the food supply and environmental cluster fuck. And how
about MTBF? We just had to have that to clean the environment, right?
Got into the watershed and created massive environmental problems.

MTBF is the alternative to ethanol for purposes of reducing
hydrocarbon emissions. The real problem is automobiles.

Quote:

And let's NOT forget ANWR. I've been there. Have you? You can't even
find an oil well. Just a pipeline that runs south and a few small
pumping facilities. And how about the extinction of all the caribou by
building that pipeline? The population has gwon quite a bit since the
pipeline was installed. And not necessarily due to the pipeline.

So a lot of the "environmental legislation" legislation has been
bullshit suggestions that aren't thought out very well and MUST have
better scientific fact to back those efforts.

Environmental legislation has made a major improvement in the
environment, even as industrialization has expanded at a rapid pace.
Look to places where environmental laws are weak or nonexistent and
wheeze heavy industry is prevalent. Think China and Mexico - they are
environmental disasters. Even in America, pollution is a serious
health threat. Air pollution alone is like a 9-11 every month in
terms of fatalities caused..

Quote:

I was just up in Oregon, where the fishing industry is still reeling
from what Bush's interior department did to them by diverting river
water to corporate agriculture (that supported the Republicans
politically), effectively destroying the salmon industry. Now Bush wants
to cut the aid to the salmon farmers from $170 million to $100 million,
in order to use the $70 million to close a funding gap for the 2010
census.
"http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=111503&sid=1&fid=1"

The Pacific Northwest salmon "industry" has been in shambles long before
Regan was president. You need to do a little more research and stop
accepting these short-sighted reports. The problems there have a lot
more to do with the damming of just about every major water flow that
salmon used. That river damming effort was directed by FDR. Wasn't he
a Democrat?

Salmon farming is leading to an environmental disaster by introducing
Atlantic salmon into the pacific waters. It has created major problems
in B.C. and threatens salmon runs all along the coast from northern
California to Alaska.

All salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Even if the salmon stocks are one of the five pacific salmon, farming
dilutes the gene pool and will result in damaged to salmon by weakening
the overall population genetics.

You better do a little more study before spewing that kind of crap.

Here's a problem that Bush's policies created, and he then wants to
screw the people that be caused to lose their livelihood.

Is this like screwing lumberjacks by taking away their livelihood?

Their livelihood is bordering on an environmental disaster that makes
the Exxon Valdez look like a dog crapping in your backyard?

It's not exaggerating to say that nearly every major problem the U.S.
faces today is due to the policies pushed through by Republican
presidents all the way back to Reagan.

But Regan came directly AFTER the VERY WORST president in history. The
country still has not recovered from the Carter years.

Every president since Carter has had to weather the disastrous results
of his term. And he lead the new wave of democratic personal political
corruption which reached its peak under Clinton. Even Bush and Cheney
can't compete with Clinton's personal political corruption.

If Obama wins the presidency,
he'll inherit a far bigger mess from W, than Clinton inherited from the
Reagan/HW Bush presidencies. Clinton was fairly successful in undoing a
lot of the damage from Reagan/HW, but Obama will have a far more
difficult task ahead of him.

What damage did Clinton inherit? He got a reasonably stable country
that was in the infancy of a technology explosion. He got to ride that
wave for 7 years until the bubble (which was not of his making) burst.
But don't get the idea that he was really showing a budget surplus.
That was just on paper and based on unrealistic economic projections.

We can't forget that Clinton buried the terrorist threat in legal fights
rather than facing that reality head-on. Sandy Berger sealed the
secrecy by stealing the documents that would have exposed the Clinton
cover-up (just one of many cover-ups by Clinton). You can't treat a war
criminal the same was as a jay-walker.

And he was the ONLY president in history to be impeached. Anybody else
that lies to a grand jury spends serious time behind bars regardless of
the excuse. He left office in disgrace and destroyed a lot of data
during the hand-over period to Bush. Clinton was, and remains an asshole.

And as far as Obama is concerned.... Well, he can't possibly come out
of Chicago politics and be clean. But then McCain isn't that great of
an alternative, either.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Display posts from previous:

	Automotive Business Talk Forum Index -> Ford	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 63, 64, 65 Next
Page 64 of 65

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding Ring
Annunci di topclassescort con foto e numeri di telefono in tutta Italia
Rencontres Sexuelles Changistes
Construction and Maintenance
Make Your Own Website
Cheap calls to Poland

Cleaning Service
mold killer
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
Janitorial Supplies
Vacuum Parts