The price of gas in America

Okay, so everyone post their local gas prices in an effort to either (1) make us really jealous or (2) make us feel pity for you.

Around here it's about $1.94-$1.97

It doth suck mightily.

Maybe fewer people will buy SUVs.

1.88 - 1.98 over here.

2.05, Ladies.

I decided to buy bourbon by the gallon, it's cheaper.

Damn. You're in Florida, right?

Maybe fewer people will buy SUVs.

You're not playing the game right, ABF!! But, yeah, maybe it will.

Uh... a week and a half ago (when we were on vacation for the weekend skiing), it was $1.95 in one town where we got it and then $1.85 in a town 20 minuites later...

But really, people don't react until it affects them. And the wallet is probably the most effective place. Look at anti-smoking stuff -- Advertising does something, as does restricting where you can smoke, but the biggest declines come when cigarette prices increase. When New York City dramatically increased cigarette prices a year or two ago (up to an average of $7 a pack) they cut smoking rates pretty significantly... 20, 30% I think...

Best gas here is $1.89. Man I can't believe it's supposed to be $2.25 by springtime... I hope all you Bush-bashing, oil-hating liberals are happy now! Don't you WISH we'd gone to Iraq for oil now. Psf.

Sure, it's expensive, but most of the rest of the industrialized world pays a lot more... and as I said, higher prices are probably the only way to get people to actually change...

Buck eighty-two here.

My car gets terrific gas milage. Last time I filled up, I paid $1.58. Gas prices don't bug me none.

Muh?? What the hell kind of car do you have?? Not even hybrids get that kind of mileage.

Usually around 80 cents/litre, sometimes climbs to 90 cents. In most other provinces it's over a dollar/litre.

Prices range from about 80 - 99 cents/litre, depending on the day of the week..

Gas at the local filling station just rose to $1.99. Bleh. *let's start drilling in ANWR*

What's the cheapest that anyone recalls gas ever being? For me, it's $1.57... I know it's been a lot cheaper than that, but I've only been paying attention since I started driving; and that's about it.

I remember sometime back when it used to be below a dollar. The reason I remember this is because I remember it going above a dollar and my parents thought that it was going way too high. Wow.

We sometimes have gas as low as $1.76. Usually, it's anywhere from $1.86 to $2.06. In a neighboring city, I saw gas for $1.62. That was like a blessing from God. If only it were closer to home. No point in using up gas in order to get gas cheaper, right?

It was a dollar a gallon in summer '98.

Back in the '40 is was a nickle a gallon.

No, that summer is was just really, really cheap... I remember it because that was the summer we went to England and gas was the equivilant of $4 a gallon there. :)

Yeah, but back then a nickel could buy pretty much anything. It could even buy a quarter.

It could even buy a dollar! *begins drilling in ANWR*

But nothing could ever out buy the Peppy GP piece.

Muh?? What the hell kind of car do you have?? Not even hybrids get that kind of mileage.
I have a car that goes back and forth to work and pretty much nowhere else. When your car gets mid 20's per gallon and you don't drive it much, you can stretch a tank a looooong way. I haven't filled up since right after Valentine's Day.

When our old Volvo broke some years back, it was 20 years old and had only 100,000 miles...

I do not understand that at all. How far away is your work?

Eight miles, round trip. I drive a total of maybe sixty or seventy miles a week, I have a ten-gallon tank and my gas milage averages somewhere between 21 and 27 per gallon, so...

I still don't understand this sentence:

Last time I filled up, I paid $1.58.

You get 20-something miles to a gallon, so do I. But unless your tank only holds 8/10ths of a gallon, that sentence doesn't make sense.

I still don't understand this sentence: What that means, in essence, is that the last time I filled up, I paid one american dollar and fifty-eight american cents per gallon. Considering the context in which the sentence was written, and compared to other posts in this thread, I would have thought the idea that I was inferring was that the price I quoted was for a single gallon of gas, not for the total amount I paid.

:link:

Nevermind.

$1.58/gallon?? I'm jealous. Around here in Philly, it's a little over 2 bucks wherever you go. I usually fill mine up in NJ, though, which is a little cheaper ($1.76-$1.86)

But you said that gas was $1.82 over there... No matter what kind of mileage you get, if gas is 1.82/gallon, it's 1.82/gallon. Just because you get more out of that gallon than some doesn't make the per-gallon cost any less.

It was $1.58, three weeks ago. Now it's in the mid $1.80's.

If that makes you jealous, you don't even want to know how much a less pack of smokes costs here, what with our third-lowest cigarette tax in America :D

Good grief, why didn't you just say that from the beginning?

And I don't smoke, so I don't care. :D

Beanjo does though :D

The cheapest I remember seeing since I started driving was right after 9/11, it got down as low as 77 cents. PER GALLON.

As far as cigarette prices go, the higher the better. Places with low cigarette prices and/or fewer laws restricting smoking are behind and don't care much about the health of their citizens.

I do, so I care. :( I'm trying to cut down and maybe even quit, though, so in a way, it's good that I live in a city that charges $4.50/pack.

As far as cigarette prices go, the higher the better. Places with low cigarette prices and/or fewer laws restricting smoking are behind and don't care much about the health of their citizens.

Let me tell ya a little something about the health of a community's citizens... if a certain group of people is addicted to tobacco, charging them through the nose is NOT the most humane way to get them to quit. For most smokers, it just cuts into our paychecks and makes us cry a half-hour longer each month when all the bills have to be paid. You jerk.

*evil time*

If you go to Sheetz, you can get a pack of Marlboros for $2.09 a pack, a carton for $19. If you go to one of the many cigarette wholesalers, you can get cartons of them for about $16.

We don't have enough crying smilies... so I guess these will have to do:

:crap: :bummed:

How much does lazy pay for a pack? He still smokes, doesn't he? How about big guy? As far as I know, we 3 are the only smokers on the board.

Hey, smoking is bad for you. Just thought I'd let you know.

Which is why I think it really SHOULD be illegal... bad with absolutely no good side effects and many bad ones, including major public health problems... it doesn't just hurt the person smoking, after all. ("I think smoking should be illegal" is of course my answer to those people who say "But marijuana is no worse than cigarettes...".)

I don't know about it being illegal.

Feh. 2.04 last time I checked, and inching higher every day it seems...

IMO, drugs such as cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol shouldn't be illegal. All of these can be used in moderation for pleasant recreation, and all of them have potential to be abused. However, the government has no business playing big brother and stepping in to restrict the freedom of its constituents. Adults should be able to make their own mature decisions of what to do with their own minds and bodies. Period.

Even when it hurts others?

Penn & Teller said it best on their show "Bullshit". It's your body, do what you want, just stay the fuck out of my house.

:D

When it hurts others, it IS time for the government to step in. Closed off and ventilated smoking sections should be in every restaurant and public building (ideally), drunk/high driving laws should be in place, etc. As the saying goes, "My freedom stops where my fist ends and your nose begins".

It's your body, do what you want, just stay the fuck out of my house.

Agreed.

*also agrees with SB and EM*

However, the government has no business playing big brother and stepping in to restrict the freedom of its constituents

Everything the goverment does in some way violates your freedoms. Just pointing that out.

By the way, I'm for keeping all those drugs illegal. Ciggarettes and alcohol should probably be illegal too, but it'd never work so goverment should just leave things the way they are now.

By the way, I'm for keeping all those drugs illegal. Ciggarettes and alcohol should probably be illegal too, but it'd never work so goverment should just leave things the way they are now.

If prohibition doesn't work for cigarettes and alcohol, what makes you think it'll work for any recreational drug? I'm not saying I'm for the legalization for harder drugs, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Everything the goverment does in some way violates your freedoms. Just pointing that out.

I think the government should draw the line at telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies. Our bodies and minds belong to ourselves, and not anyone else.

There is, of course, a reason why pot can be illegal while tobacco and alcohol cannot be, and that is the phenomenons of smoking cigs and drinking hooch were very well established before the United States existed. Since pot smoking didn't catch on until well after, the government was able to illegalize it early on, never allowing it the mainstream appeal smokes and drinks enjoy. That's why prohibition on those items will never happen, but can and do with pot. It's always been clandestine, and therefore, most people don't care that its illegal since pot smokers are a small minority.

There is, of course, a reason why pot can be illegal while tobacco and alcohol cannot be, and that is the phenomenons of smoking cigs and drinking hooch were very well established before the United States existed. Since pot smoking didn't catch on until well after, the government was able to illegalize it early on, never allowing it the mainstream appeal smokes and drinks enjoy. That's why prohibition on those items will never happen, but can and do with pot. It's always been clandestine, and therefore, most people don't care that its illegal since pot smokers are a small minority.

You hit the hammer right on the head. The government illegalized pot during the Temperance Era, shortly after alcohol was relegalized, if I'm not mistaken. Even more interesting, the government made the plant illegal under false and racist terms. Harry Anslinger, the newly elected first drug czar of America, claimed that marijuana was used by dangerous minorities- mexicans and black men and jazz musicians who worship the devil and use it to seduce white women. He claimed it made people go psychotic, gain super strength, feel an insatiable, aggressive, uncontrollable sex drive, and countless other completely unfounded allegations.

If anyone wants to learn more about the history of pot, I recommend the documentary "Grass". It's a great film, very entertaining and informative, although admittedly, it's obvious that the film isn't 100% objective. Instead, its tone is slanted towards pro-marijuana legislation. It's facts are straight, though, and even better, it's narrated by Woody Harrelson. :)

...and why not, what's wrong with marijuana. Nothing. Just more needless legislation in our Daddy-Knows-Best government.

It serves no useful purpose in society. *is high on life*

Is it a bit of hypocrasy that one can be illegal while the other isn't? Of course! I'm all for making them ALL illegal, but it just can't happen... I mean, if we tried it again, I really don't think organized crime would threaten us like it did back then (at the time, the underground could manage to get ahold of really powerful weapons that they just can't any more), but it still wouldn't work.

And yes, even with the fact that it's a bit hypocritical, due to the reasons it has to be that way, I still fully support making it illegal. Listen Darunia, the last thing we need is some idiot getting in their car while high. I know the jokes, they only drive slower, but those are jokes, not reality. Any narcotic that shows up can and should be made illegal before it becomes mainstream, to prevent the travesty of tobacco and alcohol... and firearms...

Ya know Darunia, you only answered that question because you didn't want us answering it for you. What's wrong with pot? Well, for one thing it DOES screw with your brain. There's a reason people addicted to it have trouble remembering things. Also, it's still smoke in your lungs, so there's that.

One thing people don't do much about is people driving while under the influence of sleep deprivation. Ya know, being deprived of sleep at the wheel is, at least statistically, more dangerous than driving mildly drunk (not DEAD drunk mind you, that manages to be more dangerous). People need to learn to SLEEP, or if they find themselves tired at the wheel, learn to get off the road and sleep.

IAWTP.

Me or DJ?

DJ. But yeah your's too.

IAWTP = I agree with this post. Or is it person? Same thing.

Yeah, I know. I was just wondering because your's and DJ's posts were close together, so I didn't know if you'd seen it before you posted.

Yeah.

It serves no useful purpose in society. *is high on life*

Video games serve no useful purpose in society, when you get right down to it. Admittedly, it's a lot harder to become addicted to video games than mind-altering substances, but still, this argument is bunk.

If you want let the big brother government tell you what you can and can't do for your body, where do you draw the line? Piercings can be harmful, if they're infected. HIV can be transmitted via tattoos, can't it? I think homosexual and oral sex and any intercourse position other than the missionary are all disgusting, so let's throw them out the window, too. How about fast food? IMO, McDonalds is greasy and delicious, addictive in it's own fashion. It isn't, of course, as intense as currently legal and illegal substances, but better safe than sorry, eh? Hey, we should also make laws against people being lazy. We should install alarm clocks controlled by the government that wake everyone up at 7am on Monday through Friday, because after all, if they aren't worthy members that contribute to society, their activities should be frowned upon. While we're on a roll, I say we also get rid of coffee. Did you know that caffiene is more physically addictive than pot? Sounds scary - bye bye, Folgers!

I know I'm taking all this to an extreme, but I'm trying to prove a point. There comes a time when we need to draw the line and disallow the government interfere with our own private lives (private lives - that includes not driving behind the wheel while burninated or smashered). IMO, they interfere enough as it is. Come on, let's get a libertarian into office!

Video games do serve a useful purpose. *is master of hand-eye coordination*

Professor Membrane: "Son, video games develop hand-eye coordination, and make kids into better human beings!"

That's right they do! You think I'd be second in my class and heading to college with all my expenses paid if I didn't play videogames all the time?! I think not!!

We meet again, ultra-PIGULON!!

"The gă mē is mine..."

wtf

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~djc46/gaamee.jpg
"The... gă mē... is mine..."

ah...

That episode was pretty cool.

It it's easily one of the best in the entire series.

Well, one reason prohibition of alcohol didn't work so well is because a person can just brew beer in their own basement if they wanted to.

Just like a person can grow a few pot plants in a closet. With the right lighting equipment, fertilizer, plant containers, etc it probably isn't that hard at all. It just takes dedication and patience. The same deal is true for tobacco plants, although I read that tobacco is harder to grow. Plus, a cigarette smoker will go through much more tobacco in any given period of time than a weed smoker.

Well, one reason prohibition of alcohol didn't work so well is because a person can just brew beer in their own basement if they wanted to.
That's not the real reason, though. If alcohol were always an illegal substance, there would have been much less desire to homebrew hooch. The fatal flaw of Prohibition was that alcohol use is something that has been a part of human culture since someone drank old juice seven trillion years ago and found out that it makes you feel nice and floaty. Wine has been around since practically the beginning of civilization, and alcohol use obviously as well, so that by 1918, there was no chance of temperance being successful. Instead, the many problems of alcoholism were, if anything, far worse during those years, and of course, Prohibition more than anything else gave rise to organized crime in general, and the Mafia in particular.

If the pleasant side-effects of mary jane had been discovered thousands of years ago, and the trend caught on, you'd be able to buy doobies in packs of twenty at 7-11 today right next to the Camel Lights, and there's no way you could make it illegal. As it so happens, the drug really didn't catch on in a big way until the counterculture of the 60's popularized it, so it was illegalized and quashed long before it could become a part of the human psyche.

As far as tobacco, as I understand, cultivating tobacco leaves is a far more complex and involved process than marijuana, and tobacco really isn't something you can grow with flourescents in the basement.

As far as my own beliefs, I do believe in the decriminalization of pot, because, while I personally have no desire to smoke, I do drink occasionally, and I can enjoy it without allowing myself to let it become a threat to others. I do not think it is far to make pot illegal while allowing alcohol, and I do think both have inherent dangers, but I also think that a majority of people safely control their alcohol consumption and they could also safely control marijuana consumption.

Personally, I don't see the point of having some drugs be legal and others not. As you said, alcohol can be just as good or just as bad as marijuana. Also, there's the fact that Mary Jane and cocaine (that rhymes, that definitely, definitely rhymes) open the way to organized crime, much the same way alcohol did during prohibition. I even had a friend get arrested for possessing marijuana... or cocaine, I forgot which one. But yeah, her daddy came and bailed her out, so... yeah. I just think the law enforcement could be focusing on more urgent matters than if somebody has marijuana or cocaine stashed in their car/house somewhere.

Expensive gas here is peaking at $2.03; cheap gas is $1.89.

Darunia! How dare you derail this topic! :D :D :D

"Let's get this train wreck a-rollin'!"

Gas here is still holding at a steady $1.99 despite a $1.23 drop in the price of light crude.

...

Also the Nasdaq lost about 18 points, while the blue chips gained around 50.

Personally, I don't see the point of having some drugs be legal and others not. As you said, alcohol can be just as good or just as bad as marijuana. Also, there's the fact that Mary Jane and cocaine (that rhymes, that definitely, definitely rhymes) open the way to organized crime, much the same way alcohol did during prohibition. I even had a friend get arrested for possessing marijuana... or cocaine, I forgot which one. But yeah, her daddy came and bailed her out, so... yeah. I just think the law enforcement could be focusing on more urgent matters than if somebody has marijuana or cocaine stashed in their car/house somewhere.
I draw the line at weed, and maybe acid.

Cocaine, and other drugs of that caliber, are considerably more potent and dangerous, they have the potential to instantly kill, and I don't think they ought to be legal at all.

Mind-altering drugs are a public health hazard, so of course the police should be looking for them...

I'd only support legalization of marijuana if it required a prescription (with strict requirements for what kinds of illnesses would justify such a drug!) and was available from drugstores or something like that. Nothing else.

Gas just went up to $2.19. :S

Two-fucking-twenty-four over here.

Between $2.08 and $2.14. Yuck.

Man that's cheap.

Well hey, all they are doing is pretty much promising that the SECOND one of the few alternative fuels for cars are through with development, EVERYONE will switch to them within 6 months :D. Oh sure, the price of methanol will rise if it's hydrogen fuel cell tech everyone goes to, but not by much. The diff will be that you don't have to dig in God's hellhole on Earth in order to get it, because you can frickin' make it in your backyard.

Those hybrid and alternative fuel cars are looking pretty good right about now...

Gas is now somewhere between $2.39 and $2.49. Gah! I can't afford that!!

Gas is over $6 in some parts of Norway.

Well this isn't Norway!

Gas seems to have gone up ten cents a gallon over the past three days.... the cheapest I could find it in my hometown was at $2.55!

They definitely should find some way to legalize marijuana. It's a law that serves no point: if people want to smoke, they'll find a way. If people don't, they won't. The government wastes so much money and effort trying to enforce laws it will never be able to enforce. The same with underage drinking.

It has a point because it keeps some people from doing something that is bad for them... so no, they should not.

The same with underage drinking.

No.

Yes, great idea, let's make it even easier for teenagers to kill themselves while young and stupid... way to go! :rolleyes:

My opinion is about as different as it gets... I think tobacco should be made illegal.

It probably should be, along with alcohol, but that's never going to happen.

It's a hard call... On the one hand, I enjoy liberty and the idea of life ownership. On the other hand, people hurting each other is certainly to be discouraged...

Here's my idea. More education involving the parents. To that end, let's instate a "child bearing liscense". People who want to reproduce have to take a test of basic competency in order to be allowed to :D. If they fail the test, they don't get the liscense. Also, they have to leave a few things with the department...

Basically, parents can't go around teaching their kids garbage like "well ya never know" or "well ya gotta do the things and with the aliens and "logic" is just an opinion", or, and this is the worst, "you really don't have to worry about education, I never bothered studying and I did alright, now you get your brother and get back in the trailer!". Endless cycles of hate sure are a problem, but the real issue is this endless cycle of ignorance...

Oh, there's something you should know about a few of the alternative energy sources... Currently, all of them require more energy to process than they actually yield. Crude oil uses less energy to process than it yields. As a result, if we go with methanol, for example, the energy needed has to come from somewhere, so we end up pulling a lot of energy from power plants for the purpose of powering portable things like cars. That poses a problem...

Alchohol... yeah, it's definitely bad. But is there as clear a direct link between "consume any amount ever and you immediately start reducing your life expectancy" as tobacco has?

Alchohol... yeah, it's definitely bad. But is there as clear a direct link between "consume any amount ever and you immediately start reducing your life expectancy" as tobacco has?
Of course. And not only can you immediately reduce your life expectancy to zero immediately, alcohol allows the added benefit of enabling you to reduce the life expectancy of other people to zero immediately too, so we can easily determine from accidents caused by drunk drivers.

There's no question that alcohol is a far bigger threat to health than tobacco. Cigarettes kill you over a span of many years. Alcohol can kill you the very first time you have too much. It can also kill you the second or third or tenth. You can drink yourself into a coma the very first time you get ahold of enough. Of course, there's plenty of long-term damage to be served up as well, liver damage, kidney failure, stomach damage, heart damage, you name it.

And, even if it doesn't kill you directly, it can ruin you, ruin your family, ruin your career, if you lose the ability to control it. Alcohol is the fuel behind all sorts of terrible things, and it's not good for you to boot.

Cigarettes? Well, they stink, and make people cough. They can kill people who go overboard smoking them for many, many years. But they're nowhere near as dangerous as firewater, not immediately, not long-term.

Of course. And not only can you immediately reduce your life expectancy to zero immediately, alcohol allows the added benefit of enabling you to reduce the life expectancy of other people to zero immediately too, so we can easily determine from accidents caused by drunk drivers.

Well yes, once you factor in stupidity (that is, driving drunk) it certainly does...


There's no question that alcohol is a far bigger threat to health than tobacco. Cigarettes kill you over a span of many years. Alcohol can kill you the very first time you have too much. It can also kill you the second or third or tenth. You can drink yourself into a coma the very first time you get ahold of enough. Of course, there's plenty of long-term damage to be served up as well, liver damage, kidney failure, stomach damage, heart damage, you name it.

Alchohol is the biggest drug killer in the US... but the fact that the direct health implications of drinking it aren't as bad as for other drugs, other than impaired judgement for a while, makes it harder to ban... of course, the ease of making it also doesn't help much there. At least with tobacco you need one specific plant...

As for the other part, of course overindulgence is bad. But overindulgence of ANYTHING is bad, and we can't ban everything... the question is the amount that is required to cause permanant health damage. That's the point where the government should step in...

Cigarettes? Well, they stink, and make people cough. They can kill people who go overboard smoking them for many, many years. But they're nowhere near as dangerous as firewater, not immediately, not long-term.

Actually, smoking immediately reduces your life expectancy... the sooner you quit the more you will recover, but it'd never be the same as if you'd never smoked.

Actually, smoking immediately reduces your life expectancy... the sooner you quit the more you will recover, but it'd never be the same as if you'd never smoked.
Alcohol does the same kind of permanent damage, in that it scars, and eventually mutates, your liver, a process that is quite irreversible. The liver of a lifelong alcoholic and the lungs of a lifelong smoker are both not pretty things to behold.

As for banning alcohol, the reason it won't happen has nothing to do with its effects. Look at prohibition. Banning alcohol failed because it was legal forever. It was widespread, common, and more or less a part of life for many people. You can't hope to ban it after it's that deeply ingrained. On the other hand, drugs like marijuana, cocaine, etc. never got that sort of chance. The law of the land stamped them down before they ever got the chance to become widespread the way alcohol is.

Prohibition... Many people had good intentions hoping to curb things like domestic violence and so on by banning it. They later had to admit with all their good intentions, the law had failed. The law actually managed to allow a substantial mafia to take hold. Breaking the law became a favorite past time for Americans at large. There were other factors, for example they lived in a time where the criminals could actually outgun and outrun the police, but to say that prohibition wasn't the major factor of the violence in that era would be ignorant... So, now we have a constitution that ammends itself purely to say "that one adjustment? Yeah, cancel that, excepting state law". Alcohol has been around for just too frickin' long, ever since someone ate some grapes that were out in the sun for too long...

Hard to say if banning it is the right way to go (most likely not), but educating people even more strongly than the "Dare" problem may help. It might also help if "Dare" wasn't lame. I'm surprised with as much info as I was fed (mostly correct, but some of it was straight propaganda, the propaganda part might be best eliminated), that any kids actually would start doing drugs. I don't know if it was peer pressure or rebellion, but I just didn't get why anyone "in this day and age" would just start doing that.

Anyway, there is a reason I go "clean" when it comes to addictive substances. Heck, I even chill out on the caffiene. I'm not "resisting" anything, I don't even think about it until someone brings it up and I can be around it without the slightest internal "need" to consume any of it. If you don't have an addiction, there's no resisting needed. I only point that out because a few people seem to get it in their heads that I'm actually just "resisting a good thing" because I'm a prude or something. There's just no resistance involved, and there won't be until I actually drink or smoke for the first time and those chemicals affect my brain. And, I don't do that not because I don't want to "have fun" (I really don't know what I'm missing, that's how I can have a great time without them probably), but simply because of the clinical "dull" reasons of knowing I really don't want any chemical to rule over me that isn't really needed to survive.

...

*eats a sugar sandwitch* ... What? You need sugars.... maybe not this much but....

The utter platitude displayed in this thread is making me thank the heavens y'all are about as exciting as Bob Dole and therefore lack the charisma to get elected to any public office.

Banal is a funny word.

Alcohol does the same kind of permanent damage, in that it scars, and eventually mutates, your liver, a process that is quite irreversible. The liver of a lifelong alcoholic and the lungs of a lifelong smoker are both not pretty things to behold.

I heard that the human liver is the only organ that, if cut in half, can actually regenerate itself... it this is true, then why can't it repair damage from alcohol?

http://www.southofboston.net/specialreports/drunkendriving/images/2-chart-cost%20of%20drunk%20driving.gif

But as we saw in the 20's, banning it only helps so much... (yes, drinking DID go down in the 20's, despite all the images of barnyard stills and illegal bars and stuff, but not by as much as they may have hoped...) it'd help, of course, though. But really, I think it's pretty unlikely that alchohol would manage to get banned again... cigarettes are more likely, eventually. We're moving towards that with things like the steady restrictions where you can smoke (such as how a few years ago Maine banned smoking in all bars and restaurants statewide)...


I heard that the human liver is the only organ that, if cut in half, can actually regenerate itself... it this is true, then why can't it repair damage from alcohol?

Built-up damage and continuing breakdown if you continue to drink, I imagine... even if the liver can regenerate some it's surely nowhere near enough to make up for a heavy drinker.


As for banning alcohol, the reason it won't happen has nothing to do with its effects. Look at prohibition. Banning alcohol failed because it was legal forever. It was widespread, common, and more or less a part of life for many people. You can't hope to ban it after it's that deeply ingrained. On the other hand, drugs like marijuana, cocaine, etc. never got that sort of chance. The law of the land stamped them down before they ever got the chance to become widespread the way alcohol is.

I don't drink, and never have... same with drugs, cigarettes, etc. Of course it helps to not be very social so I was virtually never in situations where it'd be around, but I'm more than smart enough to know that doing such things are stupid... so I never did.

Oh come on, even James Bond likes the happy sauce.

So do I, from time to time. It's still pretty dangerous stuff.

That's not to say I am in favor of any sort of ban, just as I am against banning cigarettes.

I know what we are saying isn't original, but that doesn't mean we aren't right :D. It's worth repeating.

As far as what the human liver is capable of, it may be best to not just go on hearsay or what we think might happen that would support our arguement, let's go with the facts. And, I do believe the facts say our livers are destroyed by alcohol.

...On another note alchohol is good for the heart in small quantities. I still don't want to mess with it though.

This calls for an experiment!

*Darunia kidnaps Lazy and sedates him. Later, he extracts his heart and places it in a tub of rich, Stolichnaya vodka for 24-hours, before replacing it and sewing Lazy back up.*

*Lazy's comes to, and immediately has super-human strength, fire-breath, and the powers of telekinesis!*

WHAT HAVE I DONE!?!

That hardly qualifies as a proper experiment.

That kinda happened to me, except none of the effects happened. I just woke up with PENIS written on my forehead with magic marker.

I hope you brushed your teeth.

Alcohol does the same kind of permanent damage, in that it scars, and eventually mutates, your liver, a process that is quite irreversible. The liver of a lifelong alcoholic and the lungs of a lifelong smoker are both not pretty things to behold.

I heard that the human liver is the only organ that, if cut in half, can actually regenerate itself... it this is true, then why can't it repair damage from alcohol?

It's true that the liver can regenerate more tissue for itself, but it's really no surprise that an unhealthy liver can't magically generate healthy cells again. If that were possible, we'd never grow old and we'd essentially live forever.

Gas is now up to $2.55-$2.60. :S

Cheapest I could find it today was $2.57.

It's crazy.

It's OPEC.

It's OPEC, supply and demand, and those stupid futures speculators that go crazy everytime something in the Middle-east blows up.

Yeah, the speculators guessing about future prices seem to be the biggest problem... that and our maxed refinery capacity.

It doesn't help that this company is probably using astrology as a guide to what decisions to make...

...

On another note, you ever play an RTS and get to a point in the map where you are at the height of your tech tree but the resources are completely gone, and while you do have a massive army, that's all you have and you can't restock it? It's an odd feeling to be sure.

...

Not that that relates at all to this.

:erm:

On another note, you ever play an RTS and get to a point in the map where you are at the height of your tech tree but the resources are completely gone, and while you do have a massive army, that's all you have and you can't restock it? It's an odd feeling to be sure.

Yes, that's a fairly common occurance in the Age of Empires games... doesn't happen nearly as often in Blizz titles, but because of the very slow pacing of the AoE games, this seems to happen regularly in big online AoE/AoEII games... and the more players the more likely it is.

Gas was $2.35 in Georgia, and when I came back to Massachusetts, I was delighted to see that it was at a record-low of $2.57.

Gas is now $2.63 and it's probably about to go higher than that. Thanks a lot, Katrina.

When I got gas this morning, I got it for $2.69, grumbling. When I drove home after work, it was up to $2.84. TWO-FUCKING-EIGHTY-FOUR!

$2.84? Good Lord...

It'll eventually even out. Demand can't keep up with the prices forever.

When I got gas this morning, I got it for $2.69, grumbling. When I drove home after work, it was up to $2.84. TWO-FUCKING-EIGHTY-FOUR!

I payed $2.99/ gal going home from work tonight for plus. Premium was $3.09 a gallon.

It'll eventually even out. Demand can't keep up with the prices forever.

As long as people drive and vechicles need oil, there will be a plenty of demand. Perhaps Americans will learn to stop buying SUVs and F-350s and smarten up.

$2.99? Where the hell was it selling at $2.99?

And very true for the SUVs and F-350s...

As long as people drive and vechicles need oil, there will be a plenty of demand. Perhaps Americans will learn to stop buying SUVs and F-350s and smarten up.

I wish, but people would rather look to squeeze the last drops out of the earth and continue to burn oil and do their best to continue our destruction of the environment than actually take measures that would help...

One gas station here had regular unleaded for $2.92. :(

I saw on the news that some stations in Atlanta were over $5.50 a gallon!!

I payed $2.99/ gal going home from work tonight for plus. Premium was $3.09 a gallon.



As long as people drive and vechicles need oil, there will be a plenty of demand. Perhaps Americans will learn to stop buying SUVs and F-350s and smarten up.
That's what I mean. People will still drive, will always drive. But you can bet your ass that as things go down this path, people are going to increasingly ignore vehicles that lack fuel-efficiency. I think you're going to see sales of hybrids multiply expontially over the next few years, and every 15MPG SUV that's replaced by a 45MPG Hybrid will over time reduce demand, as will high prices: Eventually they'll be too much of a strain for some people. They'll be forced to curb their use.

I don't own a hybrid, but I'm very, very happy I bought a car that gets 25 MPG right now. I can still go a month on about $40 of gas, for what little I drive.

I have to drive 200 miles every week to get to the university, I'm just glad that I get 25 MPG.

I can tell you one thing, my next vehicle is going to be a hybrid and I don't care how ugly they look.

CNN.com reports that gas will "definitely" hit $4 a gallon nationally by the end of the year.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/31/news/gas_prices/index.htm?cnn=yes

But on the reverse end of things, the O-zone layer has officially stopped thinning, and is on the long, slow track to normalizing. Go Team UN!

Goes to show what environmental legislation can do...

Finally, all those decades and countless billions of dollars produces a result! Hoist the champagne!

Maybe gas prices will force the car companies to actually work on really increasing fuel efficiency where the government has failed...

Oh yeah, and it seems more than somewhat ironic to me to see Republicans acting happy about successful environmental legislation...

Actually there was just less erupting volcanoes and cow flatulance over the past few years.

Average price today: $3.11. I saw it for $2.99, and quickly rushed back to fill my tank. It cost me $29.71 for 9.9 gallons of regular unleaded.

Of course, thirty-nine cents-per-gallon of that is federal taxes. If the government really want to relieve the gas prices, it should keep its cotton picking hands out of my wallet.

I saw gas today at between $2.75 and $3.15. Stupid hurricane...

$0.40 in gas taxes? Should be a lot higher, like Europe... raise them slowly though so you don't kill the economy. Republicans of course will never do that... live in the moment, don't think about tomorrow... but it will come, and we should have been seriously working on converting away from gasoline for some time now.

ABF, what the hell are you talking about? Why should gasoline be heavily taxed? You tax-and-spend Democrats had already destroyed the American hegemony, virtually handing it on a silver platter to Communist China... what next!?

What's the best way to reduce usage of something? Raise the price!

Nevermind the fact that us poor folks and college students are spending vast amounts of our paychecks on gasoline as it stands now, but what the heck! Let's take out a few loans and get us some hybrid cars! Wooyeah!

This is one of those things that you can do nothing about. Do yourself a favor and quit complaining. People will think better of you.

ABF, really... the way to make things go away isn't to tax them. That's so ridiculously ridiculous that I can't believe as esteemed a charter member of TC said it publicly. The government that governs best TAXES LEAST.

Actually, it works very well. Look at cigarettes or alchohol for proof of it... tax it more and people use it less. They complain, but they use it less... and getting us off oil is very important. People won't just do it of their own free will, so they have to be forced to... (and this goes for car companies too -- the key really is getting them to make cars that get much better milages. This isn't happening, and it would have a HUGE impact. The government refuses to, so hopefully gas prices will get to the point where car companies are forced to do something...)

Hopefully they do something before the bottom 1/3 has to start taking out loans to pay for gas.

That's a good point, but eventually we need to face the reality that in the long term (though how "long" that long term is depends on who you ask...) cheap gas won't be back like we had it...

I rememeber reading something like 2070 being the decade where we run out of gas, but who knows for sure.

Cigarettes and alcohol? I'm sorry, but I don't think that Uncle Sam, (or Uncle Maple Leaf for you) should be imposing morality upon its citizens. Why not a tax on porn too, since masturbation is a sin? Or on fatty foods? The Gov. has no right telling me that alcohol is wrong, and then charging me ridiculous taxes on it for my own good. And how does taxing gas "get us off it"? People HAVE to drive... every major economy is borne on the back of petroleum. Taxed or not, people consume it just as much either way. Until fossil fuels are replaced in the automobile, there's NO way around that... and certainly, taxes are no exception. I say fuck the taxes.

Price of gas in Alabama is currently $3.09 and counting.

Actually, it works very well. Look at cigarettes or alchohol for proof of it... tax it more and people use it less. They complain, but they use it less... and getting us off oil is very important. People won't just do it of their own free will, so they have to be forced to... (and this goes for car companies too -- the key really is getting them to make cars that get much better milages. This isn't happening, and it would have a HUGE impact. The government refuses to, so hopefully gas prices will get to the point where car companies are forced to do something...)

There was a little more involved in weaning the public off of cigarettes and alcohol than just taxing the hell out of them. For instance the surge in anti tobacco media and the numerous laws preventing or restricting alcohol and tobacco from advertising.

Besides, it's pretty difficult/ignorant to compare cigarettes and alcohol (both addicting habits) to oil fuel (a neccessity for the majority of americans). You are not going to fix the fuel consumption problem with a quick fix that you came up with while you were sitting in your underwear trying to be clever on a Nintendo forum. It's gonna take time to come up with a well thought out multi-layered plan that slowly integrates new technology and oil alternatives into a reluctant populous.

Look ABF, I tend to agree with you on a lot of things, but DO NOT TAX GAS!

We don't need alcohol and smoking, but we NEED our fossile fuels just to LIVE every frickin day! If it gets to the point where we have to stop driving to some places, guess what? Well, it already is for some people! What, do you WANT for people to not be able to drive to WORK, get fired, and DIE?! THEY WILL DIE! They will not get their fuel and die a pathetic death!

You have to realize we NEED to use that fuel. You might as well say "if you want them to eat less, make it impossible for them to afford food".

Sorry, but I am watching as many families are going without a lot of things just because of the fuel tank. Admittedly, they made many mistakes in life that lead to these rises in gas prices actually affecting them, but you can't just say the solution is raising the price even more. If they can no longer afford the gas, they immediatly lose the ability to live their lives. "carpooling" is not an option if every single person comes from vastly far away places in a radius to the point that everyone ends up paying the same price either way due to the vastly increased driving distances.

No, that is not a solution.

The solution is to be found in scientific study and invention. There are many projects in the works, some with more promise than others, but that's where the solution lies. Hey, maybe, if the laws of physics don't forbid it, we can start tearing space-time a new one and just skipping around the planet in an instant, but more realistically, the issue is in finding an alternative fuel that actually yields more energy than the energy needed to release that energy.

The governments don't tax because they want us to quit bad habits, they tax because they want to suck more money out of the public to pursure their wasteful spending.

"We need gas"? But that doesn't prepare us for when the supply of gas in the world gets so short that gas prices reach hundreds of dollars a barrel... it's completely irresponsible to close our eyes and say "the problem doesn't exist!" when it does, it is very real, and it's probably coming faster than anyone wants it to. Doing nothing, like we are now, sets us up for a potential disaster if one of the worse case scenarios is true, about the amount of gas left...

Fact: Oil comes from dinosaurs and t-rex's



*research that one if you think it's bullshit

ABF, your argument is a non-sequiter. We all know that petroleum is going to run out, that its bad for the environment, and that we need to find alternatives. I'm arguing that taxing it isn't the way to make those problems go away.

There is no better way, short of a serious government effort to put a lot of work into finding real alternatives... but they'd rather just pander to the oil companies.

The end doesn't justify the means, my friend.

And I haven't even mentioned the "destroying the environment is bad and we should do all we can to reduce the damage we do" part, which of course Republicans treat like the plague...

And what about people that don't have a lot of money? Hybrid cars are 45,000+ and on top of that you want make gasoline incredibly expensive. That doesn't leave a lot of room for extra things like FOOD.

$0.40 in gas taxes? Should be a lot higher, like Europe... raise them slowly though so you don't kill the economy. Republicans of course will never do that... live in the moment, don't think about tomorrow... but it will come, and we should have been seriously working on converting away from gasoline for some time now.
In opposition to the usual Democrat solution for everything: Throw money at it until it goes away for now! Demcrats are all about the quick fix.

I don't think extra taxes are necessary because people are feeling enough hurt as it is. Although I do think that this will cause havoc in the SUV market and drive the Hybrid market to great heights, and there's nothing but good to come of that.

(And let me specify that while on the surface, ABF and I agree on that matter, we differ in that he supports forcing this change on people, when you'll see that when circumstances change, people will do it on their own.)

But when gas prices are high because of high taxes, you at least know that you're getting something out of that money... you're getting government services. As it is for us, we just know that we're lining the pockets of big oil... which isn't exactly something that makes you happy about that price.

So really, the problem is the toxic hatred of government that republicans have...

And what about people that don't have a lot of money? Hybrid cars are 45,000+ and on top of that you want make gasoline incredibly expensive. That doesn't leave a lot of room for extra things like FOOD.

We also need things like a SIGNIFICANTLY higher minimum wage and healthcare for everyone...

If you add a tax onto gas, you're just paying more money, period. I can do without that. For all the government services I recieve, I'm sure it's not worth it. I give them enough money, thanks.

They'd probably just waste it if they got more money on gas.

Seriously. Every time I look at my check deductions, I wonder how much of it is going to fund a $10 million study working towards saving the Peruvian Gold-sheened shit beetle from extinction.

Taxing gas = No. No no no. No no no no no. Just... just... no. Absolutely not. No. Nuh uh. No. No way. No. Not happening. It better not happen, anyway. Bad idea. Making it more expensive doesn't solve the problem of "It's too expensive."

Republicans are depressing... :(

That wrong and destructive hatred of government has done nothing but ill for this country.

Wrong.

Democrats destroy the American economy with unions and minimal wages that make it impossible for the American industry to compete. That why we have no more industrial infrastructure... which is what won us WWII. Thanks to this, in 20 years, China will be the dominate world power. I also love how the liberal Canadian preaches to all of us redneck hillbilly Yankees how we should run out country... because, you known, Canada can teach all the world a thing or two about how to run a major world power.

It's funny how some people claim that democrats are huge money spenders and destroyers of our economy when after Clinton came out of office we had a huge surplus, and when Reagan, Bush Sr. and now currently Bush Jr. come in office we get huge deficites. I don't think I can respect a politician that still thinks "trickle down" economics work. I'm not a democrat myself, (i'm fairly bipartisan and can easily criticize democrats too) but I can't help but wonder where you're coming from. You come off as worrying too much about party lines.

The government that taxes least taxes most. Amen.

?

Did you ever consider that a president who generates a surplus in revenue might be to blame for major tax increases? The bureaucracy is ridiculously large, anyway... there are ten employees and thirty official procedures for every tax paying citizen. Both parties are responsible, but Democrats are nefarious for spending on the leech that is known as social welfare: a one-way out-going flow of capital that we never get a return on. I work hard for my money, and seeing it in the form of food stamps in illegal immigrants' hands may get you off, but it doesn't please me none. If you and ABF like taxes so much, why don't you pay mine for me while you're at it.

Amen, brother. Donate to the government. They won't mind.

If you like taxes so much, why don't you pay mine for me while you're at it.

My statement claiming I love taxes is so sneaky I don't even remember typing it.

I'm not siding with either political party, I just don't want there to be a tax on gas. I pay more than enough for my gas, thank you very much.

ABF, I'm not arguing their arguments, but I will say this. If you tax gas, people will lose their jobs. What good does that do? Where does this money go? Even if ALL that money is pooled back into those now jobless people's lives so they can continue to live, exactly what have you accomplished?

Model out exactly what this is meant to achieve.

Oh and, thanks for the news flash Captain. I'm pretty sure we all knew petroleum came from ancient creatures compressed for many years. Mostly plant life though...

Back on topic though, seriously ABF, what's the logic behind taxing to reduce purchasing gas? Is the logic that people will shift to alternative fuels if they can't afford gas? I see, except for one thing, NONE of the alternative fuels are in a ready state yet! They ALL currently cost too much. And, even in the cases where one could save money in the long run, too many families are so poor they literally can't afford to save money in the long run. By that I mean they can't afford the price of that initial investment.

Taking us off of gas is a great idea, but taxing is NOT the solution. People ALREADY think gas is too expensive, and it isn't reducing our consumption of it. It's just stressing poor families. Raising it further to the point where families can't afford it will just do damage.

The solution is still in the form of getting a decent alternative fuel working. Once that happens, prices are already high enough that people will flock to it. What's that they say about building a better mouse trap?

By the way, I never argued that we should "stick with gas", I just said taxing isn't the way to get us off of it. Don't use straw man arguments.

Research is what we need. Now, giving the companies researching new fuels is one way, and that's valid. But, contrary to what economists seem to believe, pooring money into research doesn't equal speeding up the research. Just give them enough for what they need. More than that though, we need more researchers.

I suppose we may just be paying the price for raising a generation of register biscuits (no offense Weltall). I think that perhaps too many kids just didn't go to college and now probably can't. I know too many parents who don't even know what a college fund IS, and when you explain it to them, they just laugh at the idea. I can only speak for my immediate surroundings, but around here just about every business I see is just the front end of some grocery store or restaurant. Basically all the money in Tulsa seems to be basically sent out to McDonald's and so on. If pressed as to where they might be headed in life, they just get some attitude and fake a kind suggestion to buy something.

What ever happened to dreaming? It's no wonder we stopped going to the moon... No one even cares any more. People have grown afraid to desire, to want something for themselves. They all think destiny has some purpose for them but no one seems to go about actually obtaining it for themselves! Don't these people realize the only destiny they can hope to get is the one they create for themselves?

Well, enough ranting... All I'm saying is I'm wondering if America is slipping behind Japan as the technology leader of the world merely because not enough kids are interested in becoming scientists or engineers... Too much apathy around here, but it may just be Oklahoma... I truly am getting sick of this place.

I see, except for one thing, NONE of the alternative fuels are in a ready state yet!

And why do you think this is? Because Big Oil doesn't want it so, and what they want they get... if prices got high enough public pressure might eventually force them to change...

Did you ever consider that a president who generates a surplus in revenue might be to blame for major tax increases? The bureaucracy is ridiculously large, anyway... there are ten employees and thirty official procedures for every tax paying citizen. Both parties are responsible, but Democrats are nefarious for spending on the leech that is known as social welfare: a one-way out-going flow of capital that we never get a return on. I work hard for my money, and seeing it in the form of food stamps in illegal immigrants' hands may get you off, but it doesn't please me none. If you and ABF like taxes so much, why don't you pay mine for me while you're at it.

Let's see... recent history.

1982-1988: Reagan. We reduce taxes dramatically while raising spending (mostly on the military) dramatically. There's a boom for several years. Since "supply-side economics" are a myth, though, the bill eventually comes due for those years of deficit spending and ... yup, crash.
1988-92: We have a crash and a war. We begin to recover from the crash because Bush Sr. was brave, realized that the only way to help fix the problem was to raise taxes, and did so.
1992-2000- boom.
2001-2005 - struggling economy. Return of Reaganomics. Complete memory wipe of hte 1980s and the results of the last time they were tried. Wars. Natural disasters. Government spending grows dramatically. Taxes are cut.

Hmmmm... what happens next? Will it be A) A bust, B) a tax hike (after a bust), or C) a tax hike (in prevention of the economy falling apart even more completely)? You can't live on borrowed money forever, and all those billions going to the wealthiest 2% will never be seen again ("trickle-down economics" works about as well as collecting water with a sieve...)...

And people like you? You're the pawns... people deluded into thinking that some of the worst possible policies for you yourselves are actually good ideas -- things like getting rid of the estate tax, which gets millions of revenue and only applies to, at most, the top 5% of taxpayers only... like massive tax cuts combined with massive spending increases, giving the lie to any pretenses of this administration being fiscally responsible (or fiscally conservative!)... in opposing things like raising the minimum wage, increasing health care for the lower classes, etc, etc, etc... it's kind of amazing really, but it just proves how little people "think".


Thanks to this, in 20 years, China will be the dominate world power.

Stuff like this is why we need to determine trade laws based on human rights and worker's rights records, not on which nations sell us more junk... China and Saudi Arabia should not be exempt from being punished for having abysmal rights records. And, more importantly, convinced to improve those records...

Wrong.
Thanks to this, in 20 years, China will be the dominate world power. I also love how the liberal Canadian preaches to all of us redneck hillbilly Yankees how we should run out country... because, you known, Canada can teach all the world a thing or two about how to run a major world power.

It was inevitable that China would be the dominating world power. Don't blame the democrats. That's just plain stupid.

And don't knock on Canada either. Many parts of Canada are much better to live in than America...
-----------------------------------------
After all, we are an empire, right? We're on a decline. Just face the facts. You live on the East Coast - the most likely area for a terrorist attack. You're going to die. Hell, all of us may even die within the next 15 years. You don't know what's going to happen. No one does.
I'll be laughing at you when the Chinese parachute down to your house and burn it down. Why? Because you blamed the democrats.

The Chinese may have a few million more soldiers than us. But this isnt the middle ages, numbers like that dont mean everything. We have a fucking ocean in between us. The chinese do NOT possess the technology to transport that amount of people over here before we detect them and react. We are surrounded by oceans (Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Mexican Poverty Ocean, Canadian Ignorance Ocean) we are in a perfect defensible position. Uh, CocknutCrapmander what about long range missle technology, what if they launch a few of those at us, lol!!!11 1337? We outclass every government in the world with long range missle and predetection technology. If we see them turn the lights on in their silos we will have decimated the man who orders them to be fired.

US defense budget $291,200,000,000
China defense budget $14,500,000,000

How about those numbers?


America will fall yes, not because someone knocked us over, but because we got too gluttonous to stand.

ABF, do you honestly think that "Big Oil" is somehow actually suppressing the progress of technology? Sorry, that's not happening. Alternative fuel sources are developing and they can't be stopped. The problem is they just aren't ready yet.

It was inevitable that China would be the dominating world power. Don't blame the democrats. That's just plain stupid.

And don't knock on Canada either. Many parts of Canada are much better to live in than America...

Ah--but it is the Democrats, exactly so. The height of US power came off the backs of great military efforts: WWI, and then WWII. During these times, the American people were wholly united under their president, whether he be Democratic or Republican: it didn't matter, he was to be respected. American hegemony was all but official in 1945, and it has continued to date... but it's slipping. I'd say it peaked in the 1960's, during the space race... at that time, there wasn't yet any dissension between the country, politics were left to the politicians to argue over. Americans were all one, and it's always true that a people cannot stand divided. Things began to change in the 1960's, and more so in the 70's. Dissent fermented with the advent of modern liberalism. Suddenly, loving your country and supporting your government weren't the most important thing anymore. The entire nation had, at one time, been behind the US policy of containing communism... thus, at one point Vietnam was as valid of a goal as the Korean War. But today, no one argues that the Korean War was a huge "quagmire", and it wasn't--because unrestrained by domestic, liberal protests, we were able to win it. My friend here says "it was inevitable that China would become the world power"... yes, it was inevitable since the 1970's, when American started to hate itself for being #1. Feel-good liberals, the new brand of democrats, started losing their belief in America, seeking to destroy our patriotically-driven hegemony. In WWII, what would have happened if the New Deal Democrats who loved America had been the Michael Moore ones of today? Could American had won WWII with the problems it faces today--? It was in the 60's that the new age of liberal thinking began to divide the country on large issues... abortion, women's rights, etc., which right or wrong, could only serve to cause conflict within our society. Liberals went further, pushing to destroy American industry with ever-more-powerful unions and increases in minimal wage (wage increases are a great thing, don't get me wrong, but not when the competing markets (China) don't share our fondness for improving humanity.) By the 1980's, the political dissension had also made American no longer respect the sitting president: Nixon. By today, the flag-toting, proud, patriotic Americans of the 1950's have become more infatuated with promoting their political beliefs than the general good of their country. Whether or not Iraq was just, the Democratic response was atrocious: fuck our president, we don't need to respect him! Today, there is so much anti-military hype, how can any foreign dictator fear us, knowing that his Democratic allies in Washington will keep the US military from lifting a finger? Such slander would have been enought to get one lynched at the beginning of the century. Suddenly, liberals blame everything on the president: even things that are very much out of his control, like gas prices. Come on now, what kind of stupidity is this? We no longer support our government, but seek to ferment unrest. Once a people no longer believe in their country or support their government, that people will inevitably fall. Democrats hate Republicans, and vice versa. Both sides are guilty of this. Bipartisanism in Washington, more than anything, weakens our national resolve and identity. As we go into the next century, the liberals hasten their dismantling of the United States' hegemony by 1.) constraining our military budget 2.) ballooning the national deficit and raising taxes to support their asinine political agendas; and increasing the waste of the ominously over-sized bureaucracy 3.) shackling our ability to use our withering military might by insisting that we take our orders not from Washington or from the values of our forefather and democracy, but from Europe, 4.) undermining our international image and integrity by allowing anti-American zealots like Michael Moore to make huge fortunes by pushing their backwards, destructive, hate-filled political hot air propaganda, 5.) subduing patriotic fervor by declaring that the US is no longer good and just but rather a rogue, self-centered, redneck, villainous state... and that as the only (current) world super power and therefore the trend setter to the rest of humanity, we should not be proud and strong as before, but weak and submissive to the international community. "Don't support our president", shout the liberals! "Support the presidents of France and Germany instead!" This sends the wrong message to our enemies. Suddenly, crackpots like Kim Jong Il feel strong enough to challenge the US. Naturally, when the next Democratic president comes in, the Republicans will counter with equal hateful fervor... and then constructive cooperation and reasoning no longer direct our foreign policy, but rather the petty squabbling of the bipartisanism. Gay marriage and welfare are fine in the imaginary world where there are no real problems to work on, but on planet Earth, there are madmen and evil foreign countries that want to kill us and destroy our benevolence. America has, for 60 years, been the guardian of democracy and humanitarianism, but with the internal division we face today, we're too busy broadcasting how much our president can't orate to notice that the ground is crumbling beneath our feet. In the real world, real problems need to be handled with firm action and unwavering force...THAT is what won us both the world wars, and lack of that is what lost us Vietnam (thanks to the advent of schismatic new liberalism). Needless to say, China suffers from none of these problems... not to say that China is a better country than us, because its not, but unfortunately for the world, its on the fast track to domination... being served to it upon a silver platter of liberal ideology.

I'm Benjamin Carr, and that's the truth.



BTW, gas is down to $2.69 here.

Gas is 2.39 average here

It's come down to $2.49 here.

It's around $2.59 or so here. The grocery store where I work did an event recently where you spend $50 a week six out of eight weeks so you could get a gift card for $25 worth of gas at BP. I just used mine today... gave me about half a tank in my Chevrolet Corsica. I think Winn-Dixie should start doing this program indefinitely. This saved me a good deal of money.

Bravo, Darunia. Bravo. *claps*

Oh ABF, I just had to say something. Just because there is no other plan doesn't mean that the one someone may be proposing must be chosen. It does mean think tanks need to get to work.

For an example, let us say there is someone dying of a disease we have no cure for at the moment. There is no treatment either. Let us assume no one has a plan on action, except one person. This person suggest something that violates current knowledge and also has no evidence to support it (all it needs if it fails the first test really, and at that point current knowledge is updated). Should that be done simply because there is no other way? I would submit not. Wasting time on a treatment with no chance of success is pointless. It wastes money and is also a shame in the sense that it wastes effort and the patient's mental state.

So, just because there is no alternative plan to eliminate fossil fuels doesn't mean we should embark on whatever plans someone can think of just to say we are doing something. Why not instead get people thinking on a plan that has a real chance to work to say we are doing something?

Basically what I'm saying is I'm sick of hearing about things like the military providing quack treatments as options to it's own soldiers, when that money could be better spent on REAL medicine (or, for example, wasting money researching psychic teleportation instead of using it on something that might actually save a soldier's life).

quack.

gas is $2.30 today.

I hope it keeps dropping like that until it's a halfway reasonable price again. (I never complained about the price of gas until it reached $2. Most people were bellyaching over the $1.70 gas.)

Thank you, Ryan, for acknowleding my political manifesto. The Lessers here aren't ready to see the light yet, so I'll let them get away with ignoring it for now.

Gas was down to $2.69 in Middleboro, Massachusetts last night... but this morning back up to $2.82.

I started bellyaching at $1.80, starting rioting at $2.00, taking hostages at $2.20, and by $2.50 I'd designed my own personl vehicle, powered by my own sense of self-esteem.

Thank you, Ryan, for acknowleding my political manifesto. The Lessers here aren't ready to see the light yet, so I'll let them get away with ignoring it for now.

I read the whole thing. :)

Thank you, Ryan, for acknowleding my political manifesto. The Lessers here aren't ready to see the light yet, so I'll let them get away with ignoring it for now.
Great minds think alike.

I started bellyaching at $1.80, starting rioting at $2.00, taking hostages at $2.20, and by $2.50 I'd designed my own personl vehicle, powered by my own sense of self-esteem.
I think in the six years I've known you, this is the first thing you ever said that truly made me laugh out loud. :D

If you don't count the Darunia Yodel CD. That was fucking hilarious. We need to find that again.

Gas here is $2.62.

I'm not sure what gas is like today, as I haven't left the house yet. I have an evening class, but no work.

Anyone can read my manifesto, Geno. It takes an acute intellect to believe it.

Thank you, Illusion, for unknowingly proving me correct.
Here, class, we have the archetypical Michael Moore Democrat:

"And don't knock on Canada either. Many parts of Canada are much better to live in than America..."

That's true, many parts of Canada may be better than America. But it's his stance that's so interesting: Here I was defending the United States, our country that we share and that I love, and he automatically takes the stance of defending Canada. He supports a foreign power over the United States. Why? Because he's not an American, he's a Democrat... as such, he has no loyalty to his country, but rather to a land rich in Liberal fervor: Canada.

he continues to support my claims by adding,

After all, we are an empire, right? We're on a decline. Just face the facts.

His sarcastic tone aside, the innermost beliefs ring true through his deception. He calls his country an empire, because of the negative connotations it bears. Coincidence that his Imperialistic appraisal of the United States also echoes the perceptions of our European counterparts? He also acknlowedges and then expresses an indifference to the plight of his country. Does that sound like a patriot, or a DEMOCRAT?

CHECK und MATE.

I don't respond because it is truly depressing to see people so deluded and convinced that lies are true...

I challenge anybody alive to disprove what I said. It's all straight-forward and true.

If you truly love your country, you would never do anything to slander or hurt it, or take the stance of it's opponents. :rolleyes:

I tend to ignore everything Darunia posts. Especially if it is longer than one or two sentences. He has that "oooooo, Im so enlightened, let me toss around some political terminology" attitude, and that just drives me bonkers. And then he will declare war on something or say some retarded comment about democrats or liberals. If I want to listen to Darunia's schpeel, I will turn on Rush Limbaugh.

I don't respond because it is truly depressing to see people so deluded and convinced that lies are true...

He probably says the same about you. That's politics, sure enough.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant Darunia.

The main thing I have a problem with is the idea that we shouldn't be complaining about our leaders. Weltall made a daily habit of that himself not but scant half decade ago :D. In a democracy, politics is something the people SHOULD be thinking about, and it is silly to assume that people weren't concerned about it until recently.

Yes, a house "divided against itself can't stand", but does that mean we can't critique our leaders at all? I was under the impression that only meant you couldn't just make a NEW government and declare war on the old one.

It's not the same now as it was five years ago. Now, people blame absolutely everything on Bush, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous (see: the people who blamed Bush's economic policies for causing Hurricane Katrina).

Liberals are children who refuse to grow up. It's really that simple. And normal human beings like myself tire of it.

This kind of hostility is why I normally stay out of political discussions. It's not just one side that does it either. "Liberals need to grow up." "Conservatives are living a lie." "Anyone can read what I said, but it takes intelligence to see that I'm right." Yes, because someone has a different view than you, they are inferior creatures. Just keep telling yourself that. There's no such thing as a well-informed person of a different political stance. I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, but more of a comfortable medium. To some people, this neutral stance is also primitive and childish.

Liberals are children who refuse to grow up. It's really that simple. And normal human beings like myself tire of it.

Really now, I'd expect better out of you. Anyone with that mentality is having a hard time acting their age. I know from previous experiences that you're more intelligent than that, so I won't use that to back any negative claim against you.

Well, anyway... I'm back from class, but I didn't see how much gas costs here. It's probably about the same though.

Really now, I'd expect better out of you. Anyone with that mentality is having a hard time acting their age. I know from previous experiences that you're more intelligent than that, so I won't use that to back any negative claim against you.

...You must have totally forgotten about the ONSP, haven't you? :D

Liberals are children who refuse to grow up. It's really that simple.

You need to stop eating every bit of bullshit Ann Coulter spouts out of the sewer she refers to as a mouth. Politics is a dirty, vulgar entity where people try their best not to rock the boat to much so they can meet the quota and earn another term of power. I'm tired of the "my party is more smart than your party" bullshit (ie: the map of IQ vs. Red/ Blue states map Stern tried to use to prove the collective voting demographic of Bush voters were dumb, which was eventually proven to be fake.) Anyone that has been alive for more than a decade, unless convient memory kicks in, can remember the partisan bullshit republicans tried to pull to get Clinton out of office and constantly defying his decisions. Equally stupid shit is being pulled now, including blaming Bush for a poor economy (no one's been able to explain this one yet), to Bush purposly allowing NO's levees to break...even some people go as far to say that he had ordered them to be broken, but I'm not going to get into that. I could go on and on forever on how retarded politics is on both sides of the political spectrum, but I'm not going to.

Moral of the story: people are fucking stupid. Period. (not you, you at least bring some good points into debates even if I don't always agree)

Also, since I bashed Coulter, I'm obligated to bash Michael Moore who is Coulter's equal in "durrrr durka durka"-ness (such as his habitual lying and hyperbole in F. 9/11). I'm personally tired of the American public being manipulated by these two assholes' agendas.

Well said, Undertow.

And you bring up a good point there, Ryan, you faggy PSXer scumbag douche! :D

Michael Moore might have a few inaccuracies in his films, but at least he's trying to show the truth... Ann Coulter is just a viscious attack dog like so many others on the far right.

Anyone that has been alive for more than a decade, unless convient memory kicks in, can remember the partisan bullshit republicans tried to pull to get Clinton out of office and constantly defying his decisions. Equally stupid shit is being pulled now, including blaming Bush for a poor economy (no one's been able to explain this one yet), to Bush purposly allowing NO's levees to break...even some people go as far to say that he had ordered them to be broken, but I'm not going to get into that.

Bush is partially to blame for the economy because of the impact of his budgets... that is, the massive tax cuts for the rich (tax cuts for the rich, aka "trickle-down economics" or whatever you want to call them, don't work, never have worked, and never will work. Give rich people more money and they just keep it.). Yes, the recession didn't start under him, but he made it worse, no question about it. He made the levees break? No. As for Clinton, I would definitely say that that shows the massive double standards here. Attacking Clinton for everything he did is the most noble thing you can do, while attacking Bush for everything he does is vile, anti-American country-hating. It's a political ploy to try to convince people that only one side could possibly ever be right, and thus it's a direct attack on everything that this country was founded on... it's about free debate, not the squelching of ideas for being on the other side of the aisle. But that's not what conservatives want, they want a dictatorship... or better yet to most of the ones in power, a theocracy... where only their views are heard. I hope they can't get away with it, but the American people are pretty stupid... I know saying 'the nearest state that was stupid enough to vote for Bush is five states away' makes me feel a bit better, but then what about the rest of the country... :(


Darunia: I'll reply to the highlighted sections.

politics were left to the politicians to argue over. Americans were all one, and it's always true that a people cannot stand divided.

One by the opression of everyone who wasn't "normal", yes... race, gender, etc...

In WWII, what would have happened if the New Deal Democrats who loved America had been the Michael Moore ones of today?Could American had won WWII with the problems it faces today--?

Of course they could have, because the only people who believe that Democrats hate America are deluded radical right people like you, not the actual Democrats who would be doing the governing.

It was in the 60's that the new age of liberal thinking began to divide the country on large issues... abortion, women's rights, etc., which right or wrong, could only serve to cause conflict within our society.

I get your point, we should still be living in the 1200s. Serfdom today!

Equal rights are among the greatest things modern humanity has attempted. We're very far from being there, and we're not moving forward on all fronts (gay rights are sloowly moving forward, but women's right seem to have stalled... and abortion seems like it'll always be an issue.), but at least we are trying, unlike anyone before. This is an unqualified Good Thing.


Liberals went further, pushing to destroy American industry with ever-more-powerful unions and increases in minimal wage (wage increases are a great thing, don't get me wrong, but not when the competing markets (China) don't share our fondness for improving humanity.) By the 1980's, the political dissension had also made American no longer respect the sitting president: Nixon.

This is why I don't like replying to these things... so many things that are so, so wrong, and I know you won't listen to a word of truth ever in your life... Unions? Helping to create equality in industries that have always enforced opression. Foreign trade relations? Unfortunate acceptance of weak foreign labor laws that I wish was different... we should not have China with any sort of favored-nation trade policy given what they do to their own people. Nixon? It's his own stupid fault for being so paranoid he needed to spy on his opposition... WHO HE WAS CRUSHING IN THE POLLS ANYWAY...

By today, the flag-toting, proud, patriotic Americans of the 1950's have become more infatuated with promoting their political beliefs than the general good of their country. Whether or not Iraq was just, the Democratic response was atrocious: fuck our president, we don't need to respect him! Today, there is so much anti-military hype, how can any foreign dictator fear us, knowing that his Democratic allies in Washington will keep the US military from lifting a finger? Such slander would have been enought to get one lynched at the beginning of the century. Suddenly, liberals blame everything on the president: even things that are very much out of his control, like gas prices. Come on now, what kind of stupidity is this? We no longer support our government, but seek to ferment unrest. Once a people no longer believe in their country or support their government, that people will inevitably fall. Democrats hate Republicans, and vice versa. Both sides are guilty of this.

Is a single word here true? So when someone does something that is blatantly illegal -- saying you don't believe in the law doesn't excuse you from having to follow it (that's referring to international law, by the way. Conservatives saying that they don't believe in international law and so it doesn't matter that we illegally invaded Iraq doesn't change the fact the invasion was, definitively, illegal by the standards of international law. I should know, I took a course on it last year...). But even so, most Democrats supported this president for a while, I'd say... the nation only began turning on Bush when it became clear the the reason for going to war -- WMDs -- was false, and that there was in fact no exit strategy. Now, Bush only has a 40% approval rating. There are non-war reasons for that yes, but this war is the main cause. Americans don't have much tolerance for casualties, and once people start dying unless they see a really good cause (like WWII) they want to quit... this is both good and bad, of course, depending on the situation. Here? Ignoring the 'why we went in' part that so blatantly shows how bad this administration is... I don't know. It looks like there will be civil war whether we're in there or not... the question is if it'd be worse with us there or with us gone. I suspect it'd be worse with us gone, so we should stay... but if there is a point where it looks like the overall violence (that is, INCLUDING violence to Iraqis! It's disturbing how easily people here ignore the reports of dozens of people dying just because they aren't American...) would reduce by us leaving, then that is probably when we should leave.

Bipartisanism in Washington, more than anything, weakens our national resolve and identity. As we go into the next century, the liberals hasten their dismantling of the United States' hegemony by 1.) constraining our military budget 2.) ballooning the national deficit and raising taxes to support their asinine political agendas; and increasing the waste of the ominously over-sized bureaucracy 3.) shackling our ability to use our withering military might by insisting that we take our orders not from Washington or from the values of our forefather and democracy, but from Europe, 4.) undermining our international image and integrity by allowing anti-American zealots like Michael Moore to make huge fortunes by pushing their backwards, destructive, hate-filled political hot air propaganda, 5.) subduing patriotic fervor by declaring that the US is no longer good and just but rather a rogue, self-centered, redneck, villainous state... and that as the only (current) world super power and therefore the trend setter to the rest of humanity, we should not be proud and strong as before, but weak and submissive to the international community. "Don't support our president", shout the liberals! "Support the presidents of France and Germany instead!"

You say "bitartizanship" and then produce a list that shows how little you are truly interested in "bipartizanship". You want "rule by us and those few on the other side who can be convinced to agree with us"... not bipartizanship, which implies actually giving in a bit and admitting that sometimes the other side has a point... 1) is done because it is overly large and bloated in a lot of ways. 2) happens these days because of tax cuts more than anything. Clinton, scourge of people like you, balanced the budget. While slightly expanding social programs, and reducing others (like kicking so many people off welfare). Bush, gave us a deficit in the hundreds of billions. Yes some of that is because of the recession, but not NEARLY all of it... not when we've squandered so much revenue by cutting taxes at the worst possible time. 3) International cooperation is the only way to get anything done worth mentioning. As Iraq should prove, going it alone does not work, and won't. 4) the right has just as many people speaking in a hateful fury (which, I would say, Democrats are not... Moore is angry, not hateful. Coulter or Limbaugh are hateful.) who are just as allowed to excersize their right of free speech. 5) I know countries want to build up their image, but the truth, hurtful as it is at times, is a good thing... now, of course, some countries go too far in attacking the US, but that's not what you mean and we all know it. "Support the presidents of Germany and France"? No, not just two countries... it's a big world. We are citizens of it, and should act accordingly... use legal means to punish where it is appropriate, use our power for good (peacekeeping, aid, blockades on truly bad regimes, etc), etc... not for the kind of thing we had in Iraq.

This sends the wrong message to our enemies. Suddenly, crackpots like Kim Jong Il feel strong enough to challenge the US. Naturally, when the next Democratic president comes in, the Republicans will counter with equal hateful fervor... and then constructive cooperation and reasoning no longer direct our foreign policy, but rather the petty squabbling of the bipartisanism. Gay marriage and welfare are fine in the imaginary world where there are no real problems to work on, but on planet Earth, there are madmen and evil foreign countries that want to kill us and destroy our benevolence. America has, for 60 years, been the guardian of democracy and humanitarianism, but with the internal division we face today, we're too busy broadcasting how much our president can't orate to notice that the ground is crumbling beneath our feet. In the real world, real problems need to be handled with firm action and unwavering force...THAT is what won us both the world wars, and lack of that is what lost us Vietnam (thanks to the advent of schismatic new liberalism).

Ah yes, the current refuge of the Republican... that world events mean we must all "rally 'round the flag" which is conveniently being held by them and them alone. Just like John Ashcroft's terror alerts -- notice how they went away with him? Shows how truthful they were, and how much they were a scare tactic to keep the American people in line-- there is far more hype in what you say than there is truth. In fact, quite the opposite. Suspending our liberty in order to fight a war that will last forever is unquestionably wrong. This "War on Terror", or your stated threat from China, are convenient excuses you need to fall back on to stop that oh-so-hated "change"...

America has, for 60 years, been the guardian of democracy and humanitarianism,

One final thing... I had to deal with this seperately. We have done so many things so counter to this supposed philosophy that when I read this I literally laughed out loud... democracy and humanitarianism? In fits and spurts, but the other two thirds of the time we've been quite adept at supporting dictatorship and terror, as long as those dictators weren't "red"... or Muslim, now... (them having natural resources we want is also a good reason to ignore "democracy" and "humanitarianism", of course... notice how we sanction Burma and not China? Yeah.)

Perhaps instead of appeal to emotion, arguments stemming entirely from logic would be more productive? Perhaps a basic concept or goal both sides agree on, and from there it's all logic and empirical evidence and nothing else. At least then people have to admit when they are wrong and there's some progress...

*is stared at like a plague scorpion*

Well... I better be hitting the ol' dusty trail...

...

*riiiing*

Whoops, fire door...

*squeezes through some other rows and quietly exits*

Perhaps instead of appeal to emotion, arguments stemming entirely from logic would be more productive? Perhaps a basic concept or goal both sides agree on, and from there it's all logic and empirical evidence and nothing else. At least then people have to admit when they are wrong and there's some progress...

That would be a fine idea, except for the fact that one of the problems with politics is that with people who disagree as much as we do, finding such basic concepts are just about impossible...

Thats why, like I said, bipartisanism is the biggest foe.

We should only have one party, and everyone should agree with the one ruling body. We'd call it "Unism", or "United Politics". Oh, wait, there's a word for it already: totalitarianism.

Gas is free today. All you have to for it is put your lips around my anus.


Darunia already filled up two tanks today

My state voted for Bush, but I didn't. :D

There is one basic thing I think both sides can agree on. Do that which causes the least amount of harm. From there, it should become a debate as to what constitutes "harm". Should harm be seen as whatever the individual who may potentially be harmed sees as harmful, or should there be an absolute standard of harm which some may or may not agree with?

That debate should be examined using logical standards, like, are there any paradoxes, ridiculous conclusions that one side MUST reach if they stick with that logic, or perhaps a question on whether or not one or the other is something has to use some sort of arbitrary method of establishing harm.

And, once that standard is agreed upon logically, rather than emotionally, some actual work can be done.

We should only have one party, and everyone should agree with the one ruling body. We'd call it "Unism", or "United Politics". Oh, wait, there's a word for it already: totalitarianism.

What Undertow fails to understand is that, as incredible as it sounds, there's definitely a very slight chance that a republic could function without corrupt parties. If memory serves me right, and I could be wrong, ancient Greece and Rome didn't have democrats and republicans. American democracy is a joke. It's really just a competition of wealthy aristocrats why vie for positions so that they can push their private agendas. It SHOULD be citizens who seek office to serve and help their country. Say, any good, hard-working Joe Schmoe runs for office in a country without parties because he wants to take public office. Everyone running against him would also be on their own, without corporate kickbacks or mud-slinging bipartisan opponents... they all prevent their standings to the public, and the public (which isn't bitterly divided between two political polar opposites) makes the decision who will serve.

This is how things are run in the Goron Republic.

Ancient Rome didn't need parties because it wasn't a democracy, and was only a "republic" in name only. In truth, it was an oligarchy controlled by the rich. Greece? Every city was different, so it's impossible to generalize...

George Washington, and many of the other Founding Fathers, were very critical of the two-party idea. Honestly, it's doing no good for us today.

On that same token, it's practically impossible for a single-party system in a truly open government like ours, because human nature is to disagree.

On yet another token, the currently smaller half of the pie is quite dangerous to it's own nation, worse still because they're blind to it (and some are openly in favor of it).

George Washington, and many of the other Founding Fathers, were very critical of the two-party idea. Honestly, it's doing no good for us today.

... while also setting the groundwork, from the very beginning, for the very liberal/conservative two-party system we still use today. :)

On that same token, it's practically impossible for a single-party system in a truly open government like ours, because human nature is to disagree.

As said, a one party state in a democracy isn't a democracy... what exactly you call it depends on the country (for instance, Japan. Is it a democracy? Well, they have free and fair elections... but one party has controlled the nation for around 49 of the last 50 years, and the population as a whole doesn't quite understand competitive elections based on differing views on issues (on the latter point things are improving, maybe (that is, on having the elections actually be about positions on issues, and having parties actually have to have platforms, instead of just being about which party gets more bridges for your local district...), but not on the 'who is in control' point...). Is this really a democracy? Maybe not quite... but it's also certainly not totalitarian, or a dictatorship, or anything like that.). But yes, in this country, it's extremely unlikely and, I would definitely say, unwanted. Maybe it would be better to have a Europe-style system where small parties can actually matter, though, because that'd increase popular input in government and force parties to work together more often... but one party? No. Bad idea.

I think there should only be one party. I know for me two having two or more parties is insane, unless one of them sucks and then the choice is all but made for you. The reason more than one party is no good unless you have a willing DD is, if you are drinking at one party, you have to commit to that party and stay. Sure you could risk driving drunk, but thats silly. Plus you never know if you are at the better party or not. What if you did drink at one party and then decided to drive to the other party, only to find out that the second party was the worse of the two. You would want to go back. Annoying as hell. Very dangerous too. One big party is by far the better option. It's less complicated, and a lot more safe. Something like a block party, Im thinking. Or a kegger where the guy who bought the keg doesnt charge for cups, because he is slow/generous.

Im glad to settle this for all you.

Instead of parties, I think there should just be individuals running for public office, stating their views on various issues, and not having to worry about whether or not their party will back these views. Not a one-party system or a two-party system, but a system where everyone is independent, and the election is decided based on an individual's views, not their party's views. And also this way, we should have more than just two likely candidates. (Sure, we had Nader in last year's election, but we all know he had next to no chance of winning, right? That is because he wasn't a member of either major political party.)

I don't think ANY democractic nation does that.

Right, Geno, that's exactly what I said... rather than agree that it might be a good idea, ABF spat back "well THAT's not real democracy! There is no real democracy!" Well, then let's get rid of what you call democracy and create what it should be. Get rid of lumbering, counter-productive, bickering political parties, and get back to what made America great: people who CARE.

That would never work... political parties seem to form naturally whenever politics is opened up. As I said, our best chance would be to have a European-style system where small parties can exist and matter.

I don't exactly like the idea of a thousand independents either. It would lead to far more factionalism and division.

I think the best way to handle this is to keep the two-party system, but cull the democrats to an easily-managable minority, preferably with hammers. That way, we have a legitimate dissenting party, but it's too weak to be little more than the political curio it should be. :D

The best solution would be to give each party a spending limit on their electoral campaigns and give more funding to third parties. As it is right now, Bill Gates is the only person with enough money to become president by himself, say nothing of his ideals.

Also, the electoral college is grossly outdated. In the age of the internet, CNN and cell phones. People are suffieciently well informed (or could be) to vote themselves. That will never happen though, because of the division of legistalation, too many people dont want to give up whatever unfair advantage they think they have.

The coconut is right, in today's age everybody COULD vote--we could have a real democracy wherein the people, not over-paid aristocrats, have the say. Not only would it be more effective and more democratic, but it'd be amazingly cheaper... so much bureaucracy would be slashed off.

And yes it would too world, ABF. The way politics are today, it's far too expensive for a commoner to run. Does that mean that commoner's have no right to take office? Eliminating the commercialization would solve the cost.

But now, because for the government, the end justifies the means.

So like, gas here is back down to a managable $2.08.

I've seen it as low as $1.93 here.

$2.04 now, but I'm sure it's in the 1.90's up the street. It's been dropping really quickly, God be praised.