Tire Pressured

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

There is a difference between creating more oil dependence and allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy. World demand for oil is going to continue to grow, no matter what the US does. We have the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil, but we cannot replace every car with a hybrid tomorrow. If only electric cars were sold today, it will still take 20 years to turn over our fleet of cars.

And this counters what I said... how?

Oh, it doesn't. Maybe you should read it again, eh? Or maybe I could come back and say there's a difference between allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy and insisting on some fictional right to be entitled to waste as much of it as I can.
What you're missing is that we have HAD the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil for decades, but for the McCain mentality types who have insisted on their 10 mpg SUV's, 100 mile daily commutes, and flat tires. If only people could take responsibility for their actions in this regard today, we could do something about high gas prices... well, today.
When did being conservative become being against basic conservative principles like efficiency, thriftiness, and good ol' fashioned common sense?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

There is a difference between creating more oil dependence and allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy. World demand for oil is going to continue to grow, no matter what the US does. We have the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil, but we cannot replace every car with a hybrid tomorrow. If only electric cars were sold today, it will still take 20 years to turn over our fleet of cars.

And this counters what I said... how?

Oh, it doesn't. Maybe you should read it again, eh? Or maybe I could come back and say there's a difference between allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy and insisting on some fictional right to be entitled to waste as much of it as I can.
What you're missing is that we have HAD the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil for decades, but for the McCain mentality types who have insisted on their 10 mpg SUV's, 100 mile daily commutes, and flat tires. If only people could take responsibility for their actions in this regard today, we could do something about high gas prices... well, today.
When did being conservative become being against basic conservative principles like efficiency, thriftiness, and good ol' fashioned common sense?

No the technology barely exists to get us Off oil. Hybrid technology is still expensive compared compared to the cost of the gas, but the cost is coming down. It is still more cost effective to buy a small than a hybrid. Variable displacement failed miserably when it was first attempted a couple decads ago, but now it has been perfected. The Ev1 failed as well a couple of decades ago, but a full electric with no compromise is now possible(however quite expensive).

As far as vehicle and job choices go, I wish you luck on mandating where and how people get to work. While I have no desire to make a 100 mile commute in an SUV or any other vehicle for that matter, sometimes people have to do what they have to do until something better comes along.

I have nothing against conservation, but it should not be forced either. People have done something about the high cost of gas, they stopped using as much of it. So far the American people have done far more about the price of gas than anyone in DC> But it appears you would rather mandate where people work live and what they drive rather than let people make their own choices.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

There is a difference between creating more oil dependence and allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy. World demand for oil is going to continue to grow, no matter what the US does. We have the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil, but we cannot replace every car with a hybrid tomorrow. If only electric cars were sold today, it will still take 20 years to turn over our fleet of cars.

And this counters what I said... how?

Oh, it doesn't. Maybe you should read it again, eh? Or maybe I could come back and say there's a difference between allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy and insisting on some fictional right to be entitled to waste as much of it as I can.
What you're missing is that we have HAD the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil for decades, but for the McCain mentality types who have insisted on their 10 mpg SUV's, 100 mile daily commutes, and flat tires. If only people could take responsibility for their actions in this regard today, we could do something about high gas prices... well, today.
When did being conservative become being against basic conservative principles like efficiency, thriftiness, and good ol' fashioned common sense?

We have had the technology for decades sure, but they have costed well outside what avg joe can afford. And even in this time of spiked oil it still costs more. I suppose we could starve ourselves to the point where the alternatives are more efficient and less costly than oil, but why? Why not ease ourself off instead of jumping off the cliff?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

There is a difference between creating more oil dependence and allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy. World demand for oil is going to continue to grow, no matter what the US does. We have the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil, but we cannot replace every car with a hybrid tomorrow. If only electric cars were sold today, it will still take 20 years to turn over our fleet of cars.

And this counters what I said... how?

Oh, it doesn't. Maybe you should read it again, eh? Or maybe I could come back and say there's a difference between allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy and insisting on some fictional right to be entitled to waste as much of it as I can.
What you're missing is that we have HAD the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil for decades, but for the McCain mentality types who have insisted on their 10 mpg SUV's, 100 mile daily commutes, and flat tires. If only people could take responsibility for their actions in this regard today, we could do something about high gas prices... well, today.
When did being conservative become being against basic conservative principles like efficiency, thriftiness, and good ol' fashioned common sense?

We have had the technology for decades sure, but they have costed well outside what avg joe can afford. And even in this time of spiked oil it still costs more. I suppose we could starve ourselves to the point where the alternatives are more efficient and less costly than oil, but why? Why not ease ourself off instead of jumping off the cliff?

A tire pressure gauge costs well outside what the avg joe can afford? Being thrifty and living within one's means costs more that what the avg joe can afford? Not wanting to bail out people who made poor decisions, like having long commutes or gas hog SUVs, is 'mandating where and how people get to work'? :confused:

Did you and Charrison even read my post before you made your kneejerk partisan replies? It certainly doesn't look like it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: charrison
No the technology barely exists to get us Off oil. Hybrid technology is still expensive compared compared to the cost of the gas, but the cost is coming down. It is still more cost effective to buy a small than a hybrid. Variable displacement failed miserably when it was first attempted a couple decads ago, but now it has been perfected. The Ev1 failed as well a couple of decades ago, but a full electric with no compromise is now possible(however quite expensive).

As far as vehicle and job choices go, I wish you luck on mandating where and how people get to work. While I have no desire to make a 100 mile commute in an SUV or any other vehicle for that matter, sometimes people have to do what they have to do until something better comes along.

I have nothing against conservation, but it should not be forced either. People have done something about the high cost of gas, they stopped using as much of it. So far the American people have done far more about the price of gas than anyone in DC> But it appears you would rather mandate where people work live and what they drive rather than let people make their own choices.

No, it appears you would rather be a liar and ignore my arguments so you can reply with partisan hack rhetoric.
I never said anything about getting us off oil, mandating personal choices, and forcing conservation.
When I said that the technology already exists to greatly diminish our demand for oil, I was talking about tire pressure gauges and fuel efficient cars.
What I did say is that you insist on being wasteful, and living beyond your means, and that your waste and inefficiency drives up costs for the rest of us, that you should not expect govt to bail you out and subsidize your lifestyle. Pay for yourself.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
mccain isn't telling people to waste gas. he's mocking obama.

not that obama can bother getting his facts straight, as Queasy pointed out:
The US uses about 9.2 million barrels of oil per day for transportation. If all tires are inflated properly and cars tuned for a 3-4% saving (I'll just say 4%), that's 368,000 barrels of oil per day. Our rigs in the gulf currently bring in over 1 million barrels of oil per day and is projected to do 2 million in the next 10 years. And that's without drilling for known oil reserves off the Florida coast. Drilling off the coast of California, the East Coast, and the Alaskan coast could easily surpass the 368,000 barrels of savings per day.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Having people check their tire pressure simply isn't *government policy*. At best, it's a PSA.

IMO, it wasn't a well-thought out policy response to the nations energy problem. It's the Nancy Reagan equivalent of "Just Say No", and he was deservedly mocked for it.

Something about tire pressure should have been no more than a footnote in a policy speech about energy. And if one is going to mention tire pressure, jack rabbit starts & stops should have been there too. Go ahead and pump up your tires and then drive like an idiot and leave your car idling all the time, you ain't saving a damn thing. Tire pressure alone isn't even a good conservation measure.

Fern
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Having people check their tire pressure simply isn't *government policy*. At best, it's a PSA.

IMO, it wasn't a well-thought out policy response to the nations energy problem. It's the Nancy Reagan equivalent of "Just Say No", and he was deservedly mocked for it.

Something about tire pressure should have been no more than a footnote in a policy speech about energy. And if one is going to mention tire pressure, jack rabbit starts & stops should have been there too. Go ahead and pump up your tires and then drive like an idiot and leave your car idling all the time, you ain't saving a damn thing. Tire pressure alone isn't even a good conservation measure.

Fern

And no one said that it is. Did you get this from the same chain email that said that Obama claims 'change would be painless,' Fern?

You guys don't get it. I suppose that's what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. McCain mocked himself. For decades, people have been talking about the necessity to conserve, to be efficient, to be thrifty, and to save, while post-Reagan conservatives have been demanding a 'right' to consume in a wantonly-wasteful fashion (as the "American way" no less).
Now your chickens have come home to roost, and -- true colors revealed -- you want govt to step in and save you and guarantee your 'right' to cheap excessive consumption, even though it means screwing those of us who have been thrifty all along.
Sorry, pal, that's as socialist as welfare.

Hence the tire pressure comment, and McCain's self-pwnage. Take some freakin' personal responsibility. No one forced you to buy a gas-guzzler, or a house in the far-flung suburbs. And if you can't afford to pay for those things on your own, then perhaps you shouldn't have them.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

And no one said that it is. Did you get this from the same chain email that said that Obama claims 'change would be painless,' Fern?
Haha, I don't even use email, much less get "chain emails".

Often, what do you don't say, or omit, is as important as what you do say. Thus, "painless" change. We both know Obama doesn't talk the "pain", in spite of your pretending otherwise. Politicians don't get elected upon promises of "pain" - "Hope and Change" and all the other promises of good things, like new found respect in the world etc sound so much better.

Yeah, he only mentioned tire pressure, and left out all the rest. It's fair game to criticize it.

Sort of like how McCain's "100 years in Iraq" seems fair game to many. And in that case McCain didn't leave out the part about if the occupation was similar to Japan etc., it's just the Dem critics who do.



You guys don't get it. I suppose that's what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. McCain mocked himself. For decades, people have been talking about the necessity to conserve, to be efficient, to be thrifty, and to save, while post-Reagan conservatives have been demanding a 'right' to consume in a wantonly-wasteful fashion (as the "American way" no less).
Now your chickens have come home to roost, and -- true colors revealed -- you want govt to step in and save you and guarantee your 'right' to cheap excessive consumption, even though it means screwing those of us who have been thrifty all along.
Sorry, pal, that's as socialist as welfare.
"Post Reagan conservatives & consuming"? What's Al Gore now a post Reagan conservative and the same for all those in Hollywood with private jets?

As for this conservative, I've been driving gas-sipping 4 cylinders for years now, and live only 3 miles from my office. Hah, I didn't even put 3K miles on my vehicle last year.


Hence the tire pressure comment, and McCain's self-pwnage. Take some freakin' personal responsibility. No one forced you to buy a gas-guzzler, or a house in the far-flung suburbs. And if you can't afford to pay for those things on your own, then perhaps you shouldn't have them.
Hehe, so now we're to believe the Dem's message is "take some personal responsibility"? What's this - the freakin Twilight Zone?

Come on, Pelosi told us the real message - we can't drill because we've got to Save The Planet!

That's a "screw you" because we're on a higher mission- message.

"Tire pressure" as a counter to drilling, or an excuse not to, is lame (and disengenuous). And it certainly isn't a government policy.

And BTW, contrary to yoor assertion, no one is asking the government to give us cheap gas. Were asking them to get the hell out of way - get rid of the mortorium. Then if they wanna use their royalty/money (averages 40% take of the revenue) for alt enegy - by all means do so.

Personal responsibility? Damn, that's a twist. Their policy now is - "we won't let you (drill) because we need to prottect you from yourself". Quite the opposite of a "take personal responsibility" stance. No, it's just more Dem nannyism.


See bolded

Fern
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Haha, I don't even use email, much less get "chain emails".

Often, what do you don't say, or omit, is as important as what you do say. Thus, "painless" change. We both know Obama doesn't talk the "pain", in spite of your pretending otherwise. Politicians don't get elected upon promises of "pain" - "Hope and Change" and all the other promises of good things, like new found respect in the world etc sound so much better.

OH RLY? I pretend otherwise... :roll:

Text
Video

"The change we seek has always required great struggle and great sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we're willing to work for it.
So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. Change will take time. There will be setbacks and false starts, and sometimes we'll make mistakes."


Originally posted by: Fern
Yeah, he only mentioned tire pressure, and left out all the rest. It's fair game to criticize it.

Sort of like how McCain's "100 years in Iraq" seems fair game to many. And in that case McCain didn't leave out the part about if the occupation was similar to Japan etc., it's just the Dem critics who do.
:roll: again

"Post Reagan conservatives & consuming"? What's Al Gore now a post Reagan conservative and the same for all those in Hollywood with private jets?
Duh-version. When have I ever supported Al Gore here?

As for this conservative, I've been driving gas-sipping 4 cylinders for years now, and live only 3 miles from my office. Hah, I didn't even put 3K miles on my vehicle last year.
Good for you. Too bad you're not defending your own lifestyle.

Hehe, so now we're to believe the Dem's message is "take some personal responsibility"? What's this - the freakin Twilight Zone?
That's what I think every time I see Bush and McCain Republicans these days. It's all say one thing, do another.

Come on, Pelosi told us the real message - we can't drill because we've got to Save The Planet!

That's a "screw you" because we're on a higher mission- message.
I don't care what Pelosi said, nor is that part of the issue here. We're not talking about Pelosi.

"Tire pressure" as a counter to drilling, or an excuse not to, is lame (and disengenuous). And it certainly isn't a government policy.
It's not supposed to be a govt policy. Or even a counter to drilling.

And BTW, contrary to yoor assertion, no one is asking the government to give us cheap gas. Were asking them to get the hell out of way - get rid of the mortorium. Then if they wanna use their royalty/money (averages 40% take of the revenue) for alt enegy - by all means do so.
Wrong. The fictional 'moratorium' you speak of only exists on publicly-owned lands. This isn't 'go ahead and drill.'

Personal responsibility? Damn, that's a twist. Their policy now is - "we won't let you (drill) because we need to prottect you from yourself". Quite the opposite of a "take personal responsibility" stance. No, it's just more Dem nannyism.
The only twist here is your spin. When did I ever say that we shouldn't drill? Or that I am trying to protect you from yourself?

See my bolded, eh?


No one forced you to buy a gas-guzzler, or a house in the far-flung suburbs. And if you can't afford to pay for those things on your own, then perhaps you shouldn't have them.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Wrong. The fictional 'moratorium' you speak of only exists on publicly-owned lands. This isn't 'go ahead and drill.'

how many offshore lands aren't publicly-owned?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

There is a difference between creating more oil dependence and allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy. World demand for oil is going to continue to grow, no matter what the US does. We have the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil, but we cannot replace every car with a hybrid tomorrow. If only electric cars were sold today, it will still take 20 years to turn over our fleet of cars.

And this counters what I said... how?

Oh, it doesn't. Maybe you should read it again, eh? Or maybe I could come back and say there's a difference between allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy and insisting on some fictional right to be entitled to waste as much of it as I can.
What you're missing is that we have HAD the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil for decades, but for the McCain mentality types who have insisted on their 10 mpg SUV's, 100 mile daily commutes, and flat tires. If only people could take responsibility for their actions in this regard today, we could do something about high gas prices... well, today.
When did being conservative become being against basic conservative principles like efficiency, thriftiness, and good ol' fashioned common sense?

We have had the technology for decades sure, but they have costed well outside what avg joe can afford. And even in this time of spiked oil it still costs more. I suppose we could starve ourselves to the point where the alternatives are more efficient and less costly than oil, but why? Why not ease ourself off instead of jumping off the cliff?

A tire pressure gauge costs well outside what the avg joe can afford? Being thrifty and living within one's means costs more that what the avg joe can afford? Not wanting to bail out people who made poor decisions, like having long commutes or gas hog SUVs, is 'mandating where and how people get to work'? :confused:

Did you and Charrison even read my post before you made your kneejerk partisan replies? It certainly doesn't look like it.


You consider my reply kneejerk? At least it wasnt laced with rhetoric.
How many times can you get SUV into a reply? Is that supposed to make your argument stronger by relying on a dumbass emotion based talking point?

Perhaps I thought you were talking about other technolgies instead of a fucking tire gauge? Like hybrids, electric ect. Excuuuuuse me............back to bickering over an insiginificant talking point. :disgust:


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
A tire pressure gauge costs well outside what the avg joe can afford? Being thrifty and living within one's means costs more that what the avg joe can afford? Not wanting to bail out people who made poor decisions, like having long commutes or gas hog SUVs, is 'mandating where and how people get to work'? :confused:

Did you and Charrison even read my post before you made your kneejerk partisan replies? It certainly doesn't look like it.
You consider my reply kneejerk? At least it wasnt laced with rhetoric.
How many times can you get SUV into a reply? Is that supposed to make your argument stronger by relying on a dumbass emotion based talking point?

Perhaps I thought you were talking about other technolgies instead of a fucking tire gauge? Like hybrids, electric ect. Excuuuuuse me............back to bickering over an insiginificant talking point. :disgust:

It looks like I got it in only once, so I'd have to say that yes, you don't actually read posts before you reply to them.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I can't fucking believe you people are still arguing about this!

Energy conservation is by far the cheapest, fastest most efficient way to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce our consumption. Try arguing that, you can't!

Second, stop taking people out of context. Obama has a comprehensive energy policy, just like McCain has an extensive Iraq policy. Flailing away at McCain's "100 years" comment or Obama's "tire pressure" comments out of context only makes you look like a partisan idiot who's too stupid to take on each candidate's respective policies.
 

justly

Banned
Jul 25, 2003
493
0
0
I cant help but wonder why so many people act as if they are blind to the fact that gasoline is but one use of crude oil.

Even if renewable energy sources could be used to replace all gasoline powered cars it is not nearly ready to replace every use crude oil provides (if you think otherwise then I would ask you, and any politician that agrees with you to take a commercial airliner filled with 100% biodiesel up to normal cruising altitude and see for yourselves how well gravity works).

Many of you apparently dont know that gasoline was once considered a byproduct that had little value, let me repeat that "gasoline was once considered a byproduct that had little value". Just the attempt to eliminate gasoline powerd vehicle's on our roads would reinvigorate gasoline as a viable alternative because we would still need the other things crude oil provides making gasoline an underutilized byproduct all over again thereby reducing the cost. I see gasoline price increases as more of an inconvenience that may hurt some people more than others, the real problem is the rest of our infrastructure that depends on other products crude oil provides.

If anyone wants to argue that oil drilling is not needed here in the US then by all means explain how we can reduce our oil consumption enough to eliminate the need to import it. That means you will have to provide a reasonably priced and, abundant replacement for asphalt, plastic, jet fuel, diesel, gasoline, lubricating oil, kerosene, heating oil and dont forget LP gas.

Minimizing our need for oil is a noble goal, so I dont mind being reminded to check my tire pressure, but proper tire pressure is not a solution and, neither is trying to eliminate the need for gasoline since it is only one of the many products crude oil provides.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Vic
A tire pressure gauge costs well outside what the avg joe can afford? Being thrifty and living within one's means costs more that what the avg joe can afford? Not wanting to bail out people who made poor decisions, like having long commutes or gas hog SUVs, is 'mandating where and how people get to work'? :confused:

Did you and Charrison even read my post before you made your kneejerk partisan replies? It certainly doesn't look like it.
You consider my reply kneejerk? At least it wasnt laced with rhetoric.
How many times can you get SUV into a reply? Is that supposed to make your argument stronger by relying on a dumbass emotion based talking point?

Perhaps I thought you were talking about other technolgies instead of a fucking tire gauge? Like hybrids, electric ect. Excuuuuuse me............back to bickering over an insiginificant talking point. :disgust:

It looks like I got it in only once, so I'd have to say that yes, you don't actually read posts before you reply to them.


How convenient you lopped off your previous reply :disgust:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
How convenient you lopped off your previous reply :disgust:
Huh? When? You mean when I quoted Charrison's use of it? Otherwise, I searched and it was Bowfinger who used it in this thread prior to.

Anyway, I think the point sticks. It's simple supply and demand. Or basic accounting, however you want to look at it. Look, if someone asked you right now why oil prices are falling, you'd say reduced demand, right? Conservation is just another way to reduce demand, and one that people don't (or at least shouldn't) have to be forced into doing. It's in your own best interests FFS. That is unless you actually like spending a lot on gas just so you can be stuck in traffic for hours commuting back and forth to work every day. That's just crazy if you ask me.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
From justly-

If anyone wants to argue that oil drilling is not needed here in the US then by all means explain how we can reduce our oil consumption enough to eliminate the need to import it. That means you will have to provide a reasonably priced and, abundant replacement for asphalt, plastic, jet fuel, diesel, gasoline, lubricating oil, kerosene, heating oil and dont forget LP gas.

Problem is, you're making an assumption- that domestic drilling will change the situation significantly, which seems unlikely. There's really a lot of false hope being peddled by domestic drilling proponents, who're basically telling us that we can drink whiskey from a bottle of wine...

While gasoline was once an undesirable byproduct of refining, modern methods can push the end products of a barrel of oil in whatever direction is desired, within limits. I recently read, somewhere, that a 55 gal barrel of crude can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, depending on the base crude used... the rest is fractionalized as the other products you mention.

If we reduce the demand for gasoline, refiners will adjust their processes to use less oil to produce less gasoline and a higher % of the other products that are in demand. The first part, reducing demand, is the hard part, the rest relatively easy...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
No the technology barely exists to get us Off oil. Hybrid technology is still expensive compared compared to the cost of the gas, but the cost is coming down. It is still more cost effective to buy a small than a hybrid. Variable displacement failed miserably when it was first attempted a couple decads ago, but now it has been perfected. The Ev1 failed as well a couple of decades ago, but a full electric with no compromise is now possible(however quite expensive).

As far as vehicle and job choices go, I wish you luck on mandating where and how people get to work. While I have no desire to make a 100 mile commute in an SUV or any other vehicle for that matter, sometimes people have to do what they have to do until something better comes along.

I have nothing against conservation, but it should not be forced either. People have done something about the high cost of gas, they stopped using as much of it. So far the American people have done far more about the price of gas than anyone in DC> But it appears you would rather mandate where people work live and what they drive rather than let people make their own choices.

No, it appears you would rather be a liar and ignore my arguments so you can reply with partisan hack rhetoric.
I never said anything about getting us off oil, mandating personal choices, and forcing conservation.
When I said that the technology already exists to greatly diminish our demand for oil, I was talking about tire pressure gauges and fuel efficient cars.
What I did say is that you insist on being wasteful, and living beyond your means, and that your waste and inefficiency drives up costs for the rest of us, that you should not expect govt to bail you out and subsidize your lifestyle. Pay for yourself.

I am a liar? What I am I not being truthful about? And how Do you know I am wasteful in my lifestyle?
But while we are on the subject on honesty...

The average american has a reasonable 25 mile commute.
And as near as I can there are not 10mpg SUVs, there are lots that will get combined 15mpg.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Genx87
How convenient you lopped off your previous reply :disgust:
Huh? When? You mean when I quoted Charrison's use of it? Otherwise, I searched and it was Bowfinger who used it in this thread prior to.

Anyway, I think the point sticks. It's simple supply and demand. Or basic accounting, however you want to look at it. Look, if someone asked you right now why oil prices are falling, you'd say reduced demand, right? Conservation is just another way to reduce demand, and one that people don't (or at least shouldn't) have to be forced into doing. It's in your own best interests FFS. That is unless you actually like spending a lot on gas just so you can be stuck in traffic for hours commuting back and forth to work every day. That's just crazy if you ask me.

You right and American have by and large sucked it up and conserved, to the tune of 800k barrels a day. However world demand has for grown by about twice that amount. So the answer is not just conservation, but increased supply as well.

And yes there are economic reasons for having a long commute. A better paying job with a crap commute is often better than no commute and a crap job. And it is often easier to change jobs than to change where you leave, so sometimes you just gotta put up with crap commute.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Why is it that "Republicans" have such a hard-on right now in demanding the government bail us out of our oil troubles....

Don't "Republicans" believe that every one should fend for themselves?

oh, wait - it's an issue now that the Democrats seem poised to take control....

/pah....
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: charrison
I am a liar? What I am I not being truthful about? And how Do you know I am wasteful in my lifestyle?
But while we are on the subject on honesty...

The average american has a reasonable 25 mile commute.
And as near as I can there are not 10mpg SUVs, there are lots that will get combined 15mpg.

Who was talking about the "average American?" I wasn't.

Originally posted by: charrison
You right and American have by and large sucked it up and conserved, to the tune of 800k barrels a day. However world demand has for grown by about twice that amount. So the answer is not just conservation, but increased supply as well.
World demand is also laggin with high prices. Oil is a global market. My point however was to demonstrate how just a relatively tiny amount of increased conservation can lower prices for everyone, and much faster than new drilling. Apparently this was completely lost on you.

And nobody ever said that the answer is "just" conservation. In fact, I've said the opposite so many times in this thread alone, that I am in favor of drilling, that it is obvious that you have no intention of ever having an honest discussion.

And yes there are economic reasons for having a long commute. A better paying job with a crap commute is often better than no commute and a crap job. And it is often easier to change jobs than to change where you leave, so sometimes you just gotta put up with crap commute.
Sucks to you then now that that economic math is changing. This is what I'm talking about. You make a poor financial decision and now you want govt to fix it for you. The hypocrisy is stunning, but not nearly so much as your own blindness.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Why is it that "Republicans" have such a hard-on right now in demanding the government bail us out of our oil troubles....

Don't "Republicans" believe that every one should fend for themselves?

oh, wait - it's an issue now that the Democrats seem poised to take control....

/pah....

You didn't get that A in Remedial Logic did you?

Republicans want to get the Eco-Nazi Democrats out of the way of letting American's solve the problem.

In that BB thread you crap on it like you know what you're talking about, but here you're not even registering an IQ of 10.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Fern
Having people check their tire pressure simply isn't *government policy*. At best, it's a PSA.

IMO, it wasn't a well-thought out policy response to the nations energy problem. It's the Nancy Reagan equivalent of "Just Say No", and he was deservedly mocked for it.

Something about tire pressure should have been no more than a footnote in a policy speech about energy. And if one is going to mention tire pressure, jack rabbit starts & stops should have been there too. Go ahead and pump up your tires and then drive like an idiot and leave your car idling all the time, you ain't saving a damn thing. Tire pressure alone isn't even a good conservation measure.

Fern

And no one said that it is. Did you get this from the same chain email that said that Obama claims 'change would be painless,' Fern?

You guys don't get it. I suppose that's what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. McCain mocked himself. For decades, people have been talking about the necessity to conserve, to be efficient, to be thrifty, and to save, while post-Reagan conservatives have been demanding a 'right' to consume in a wantonly-wasteful fashion (as the "American way" no less).
Now your chickens have come home to roost, and -- true colors revealed -- you want govt to step in and save you and guarantee your 'right' to cheap excessive consumption, even though it means screwing those of us who have been thrifty all along.
Sorry, pal, that's as socialist as welfare.

Hence the tire pressure comment, and McCain's self-pwnage. Take some freakin' personal responsibility. No one forced you to buy a gas-guzzler, or a house in the far-flung suburbs. And if you can't afford to pay for those things on your own, then perhaps you shouldn't have them.

:thumbsup: