| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Hook
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9011
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
Roberto, WHERE do you pay less for diesel than gas? Certainly not in the US or where I live in Mexico.
Once upon a time, yes, but not where I live, unless you are talking the ethyl pumps in Mexico.
Ethyl may be an antiquated term for higher octane gas, admittedly..........
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by Hook]
|
|
|
mcfez
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8678
Registered: 12-2-2009
Location: aka BN yankeeirishman
Member Is Offline
|
|
Add us Ram Truck guys too, Roberto :-( I spend 10 hours per week in my truck just taking the young one back and forth to his school in town. Half
hour to it...half hour back to the farm. Repeat at 3:00 pm!
| Quote: | Originally posted by Roberto
This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed)
tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons
means I don't have to fuel for months. And it's diesel, so I pay less than gasoline. Eat your heart out Tacoma drivers. 
All this and noise and stink, too! 
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by Roberto] |
Old people are like the old cars, made of some tough stuff. May show a little rust, but good as gold on the inside.
|
|
|
Hook
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9011
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Hook, Have rediscovered better fishing grounds and very happy with 'em. Thinking
outside the Fox? Just stating the facts. |
Good luck with that cane pole, amigo. Never like farmed catfish.
|
|
|
CortezBlue
Super Nomad
Posts: 2213
Registered: 11-14-2006
Location: Fenix/San Phelipe
Member Is Offline
|
|
Since oil is only purchased in US Dollars, the devaluation of the dollar is only going to compound the issue.
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Bajaboy, How 'bout another sip of that cool aid?
|
Don't believe everything you read in a fortune cookie:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-oil-pipeline-ne...
Nebraska governor signs bills to reroute Keystone pipeline
Photo
Tue, Nov 22 2011
By Michael Avok
LINCOLN, Neb (Reuters) - Nebraska governor Dave Heineman signed into law on Tuesday bills to reroute the Keystone XL pipeline away from the
ecologically sensitive Sandhills region.
One bill puts into law a compromise agreed with Keystone pipeline builder TransCanada to move the route away from the Sandhills and the Ogallala
aquifer. The second bill approves state funding for an environmental study for a new pipeline route not to exceed $2 million.
By law, the governor now has the final say in state government on the new route. The U.S. Secretary of State has the final say nationally.
After working with Nebraska lawmakers last week, TransCanada Corp. agreed to find a new route for its pipeline. Earlier this month, the State
Department ordered the company to find a new route for the line in a decision that set back the $7 billion, Canada-to-Texas pipeline by more than a
year.
The pipeline would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta's oil sands to Texas refineries. But environmentalists strongly oppose the
project, because of concerns about spills and carbon emissions from production of oil sands crude.
Nebraska lawmakers on Tuesday voted unanimously to move the pipeline and to spend money on the environmental study, sending the bills to Heineman's
desk.
He was quick to sign them, bringing to a close a 15-day special legislative session called solely to craft pipeline regulations.
"Our work is done," Heineman said. "I want to say thank you to our citizens and our lawmakers."
At issue was the potential environmental impact a pipeline could have on the Sandhills region and the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to many
cities and ranches and supports the agriculture industry with water for irrigation.
Nebraska forged ahead with pipeline legislation even after the State Department's decision to put off giving TransCanada a permit for the Keystone XL
line until 2013.
(Writing and reporting by Michael Avok; Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Greg McCune)
Or another one that is obviously more fair and balanced:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-hein...
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman expects to seek Obama decision on Keystone before election
Published January 19, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Print
Email
Share
inShare6
President Obama might be compelled to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline before the election after all.
Though the president just rejected a permit for the controversial project, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman told Fox News that he expects to send the Obama
administration a new proposed route for the pipeline well before Election Day.
"I fully expect we could get it done certainly in the early September, August time frame," the governor told Fox News on Thursday. "I would send the
letter back to the president of the United States saying we approve it and if he were decisive, he could turn around and approve it shortly
thereafter, well before the November election."
The White House, in justifying its decision to turn down the permit, blamed Republicans for forcing a decision in a tightened time frame.
Congressional Republicans had attached a provision to last year's short-term payroll tax cut extension requiring a presidential decision on Keystone
in 60 days, a time frame administration officials warned would not be sufficient.
But all along, administration officials have also invoked the concerns over the pipeline of Nebraska officials, including Heineman, in justifying
their handling of the issue.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in reviewing the history of the dispute Wednesday, said "concerns were raised about the environmental impacts
on the air and water quality in Nebraska."
Yet while those concerns contributed to the State Department decision late last year to delay the federal review process, top Nebraska officials were
not on board with the president's decision Wednesday to reject the permit.
"Right now, I think they're looking for a convenient excuse to get it beyond the election. Let's do what's right for the country. Let's put America
back to work," Heineman said.
Nebraska lawmakers had earlier raised concern about the impact the initial pipeline route, which runs from Canada to Texas, would have on an important
and vast underground water source in Nebraska. In November, the governor signed a bill that would pay for a new state-run environmental study of a new
route that TransCanada agreed to pursue.
But Heineman disputes any suggestion that the federal government needs lots of time to review his state's new study. He said the project already
received initial approval from the State Department for the earlier route, before the department backed off upon objections from environmentalists.
As Obama rejected the permit for Keystone saying there wasn't enough time to review at the federal level, Heineman questioned why -- since the state
and the company have already agreed to reroute the pipeline through a less sensitive area.
"So again, the State Department had already approved the route that was much more environmentally sensitive, and so in my view, he should have said
'yes' to allow this to move forward. There's so much at stake for this country," he said.
Heineman said his state will have completed the new study by about August, and sees no reason for further delay.
"I would send a letter to the Department of State saying in Nebraska, we approve," he said. "At that stage, all they've got to then say it's in the
national interest. And again, I think you could say that today. They've been at this for three years."
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns echoed Heineman's concerns in a statement Wednesday. He said Obama's decision was a sign he "lacks faith" in
Nebraska's ability to choose a new route.
"By arguing that the Nebraska route could force them to deny the permit, he's implying Nebraska can't get it right. There is no legitimate
justification for the delay. To suggest a few dozen miles of the route in Nebraska -- which will be identified by the governor, consistent with the
law -- affects the overall public interest for more than 1,600 miles of pipeline is laughable and reeks of political gamesmanship," he said.
But Obama and his team said Republicans forced his hand. Obama said in a statement Wednesday that his call was "not a judgment on the merits of the
pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project
and protect the American people."
Carney said Thursday it is a fallacy to suggest that anything other than the insistence by House Republicans to impose the 60-day deadline is
responsible for the decision.
TransCanada has already announced that it will seek a new permit at the federal level.
Republicans in Congress also said they would not throw in the towel on the issue. Some called for Obama to reverse his decision.
Yet the debate is steeped in election-year politics. Obama is caught between two factions of his base on the decision over Keystone, a reality that
critics claimed contributed to the decision to delay the project in the first place. Unions are clamoring for the pipeline, saying thousands of jobs
are at stake, while environmentalists are vehemently opposed to it.
The environmentalists applauded Obama for his announcement Wednesday.
"President Obama has shown bold leadership in standing up to Big Oil and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the
Earth, said in a statement.
Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-hein...
|
|
|
CortezBlue
Super Nomad
Posts: 2213
Registered: 11-14-2006
Location: Fenix/San Phelipe
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Bajaboy, How 'bout another sip of that cool aid?
|
Don't believe everything you read in a fortune cookie:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-oil-pipeline-ne...
Nebraska governor signs bills to reroute Keystone pipeline
Photo
Tue, Nov 22 2011
By Michael Avok
LINCOLN, Neb (Reuters) - Nebraska governor Dave Heineman signed into law on Tuesday bills to reroute the Keystone XL pipeline away from the
ecologically sensitive Sandhills region.
One bill puts into law a compromise agreed with Keystone pipeline builder TransCanada to move the route away from the Sandhills and the Ogallala
aquifer. The second bill approves state funding for an environmental study for a new pipeline route not to exceed $2 million.
By law, the governor now has the final say in state government on the new route. The U.S. Secretary of State has the final say nationally.
After working with Nebraska lawmakers last week, TransCanada Corp. agreed to find a new route for its pipeline. Earlier this month, the State
Department ordered the company to find a new route for the line in a decision that set back the $7 billion, Canada-to-Texas pipeline by more than a
year.
The pipeline would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta's oil sands to Texas refineries. But environmentalists strongly oppose the
project, because of concerns about spills and carbon emissions from production of oil sands crude.
Nebraska lawmakers on Tuesday voted unanimously to move the pipeline and to spend money on the environmental study, sending the bills to Heineman's
desk.
He was quick to sign them, bringing to a close a 15-day special legislative session called solely to craft pipeline regulations.
"Our work is done," Heineman said. "I want to say thank you to our citizens and our lawmakers."
At issue was the potential environmental impact a pipeline could have on the Sandhills region and the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to many
cities and ranches and supports the agriculture industry with water for irrigation.
Nebraska forged ahead with pipeline legislation even after the State Department's decision to put off giving TransCanada a permit for the Keystone XL
line until 2013.
(Writing and reporting by Michael Avok; Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Greg McCune)
Or another one that is obviously more fair and balanced:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-hein...
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman expects to seek Obama decision on Keystone before election
Published January 19, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Print
Email
Share
inShare6
President Obama might be compelled to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline before the election after all.
Though the president just rejected a permit for the controversial project, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman told Fox News that he expects to send the Obama
administration a new proposed route for the pipeline well before Election Day.
"I fully expect we could get it done certainly in the early September, August time frame," the governor told Fox News on Thursday. "I would send the
letter back to the president of the United States saying we approve it and if he were decisive, he could turn around and approve it shortly
thereafter, well before the November election."
The White House, in justifying its decision to turn down the permit, blamed Republicans for forcing a decision in a tightened time frame.
Congressional Republicans had attached a provision to last year's short-term payroll tax cut extension requiring a presidential decision on Keystone
in 60 days, a time frame administration officials warned would not be sufficient.
But all along, administration officials have also invoked the concerns over the pipeline of Nebraska officials, including Heineman, in justifying
their handling of the issue.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in reviewing the history of the dispute Wednesday, said "concerns were raised about the environmental impacts
on the air and water quality in Nebraska."
Yet while those concerns contributed to the State Department decision late last year to delay the federal review process, top Nebraska officials were
not on board with the president's decision Wednesday to reject the permit.
"Right now, I think they're looking for a convenient excuse to get it beyond the election. Let's do what's right for the country. Let's put America
back to work," Heineman said.
Nebraska lawmakers had earlier raised concern about the impact the initial pipeline route, which runs from Canada to Texas, would have on an important
and vast underground water source in Nebraska. In November, the governor signed a bill that would pay for a new state-run environmental study of a new
route that TransCanada agreed to pursue.
But Heineman disputes any suggestion that the federal government needs lots of time to review his state's new study. He said the project already
received initial approval from the State Department for the earlier route, before the department backed off upon objections from environmentalists.
As Obama rejected the permit for Keystone saying there wasn't enough time to review at the federal level, Heineman questioned why -- since the state
and the company have already agreed to reroute the pipeline through a less sensitive area.
"So again, the State Department had already approved the route that was much more environmentally sensitive, and so in my view, he should have said
'yes' to allow this to move forward. There's so much at stake for this country," he said.
Heineman said his state will have completed the new study by about August, and sees no reason for further delay.
"I would send a letter to the Department of State saying in Nebraska, we approve," he said. "At that stage, all they've got to then say it's in the
national interest. And again, I think you could say that today. They've been at this for three years."
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns echoed Heineman's concerns in a statement Wednesday. He said Obama's decision was a sign he "lacks faith" in
Nebraska's ability to choose a new route.
"By arguing that the Nebraska route could force them to deny the permit, he's implying Nebraska can't get it right. There is no legitimate
justification for the delay. To suggest a few dozen miles of the route in Nebraska -- which will be identified by the governor, consistent with the
law -- affects the overall public interest for more than 1,600 miles of pipeline is laughable and reeks of political gamesmanship," he said.
But Obama and his team said Republicans forced his hand. Obama said in a statement Wednesday that his call was "not a judgment on the merits of the
pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project
and protect the American people."
Carney said Thursday it is a fallacy to suggest that anything other than the insistence by House Republicans to impose the 60-day deadline is
responsible for the decision.
TransCanada has already announced that it will seek a new permit at the federal level.
Republicans in Congress also said they would not throw in the towel on the issue. Some called for Obama to reverse his decision.
Yet the debate is steeped in election-year politics. Obama is caught between two factions of his base on the decision over Keystone, a reality that
critics claimed contributed to the decision to delay the project in the first place. Unions are clamoring for the pipeline, saying thousands of jobs
are at stake, while environmentalists are vehemently opposed to it.
The environmentalists applauded Obama for his announcement Wednesday.
"President Obama has shown bold leadership in standing up to Big Oil and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the
Earth, said in a statement.
Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-hein... |
Does this come in an audio book format???
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by Roberto
This is where I am REALLY happy to work in TJ a couple days a week. I also have changed the stock tank on my truck, and have two (not in the bed)
tanks for a total of 95 gallons. I also have an in-bed auxiliary 105 gallon tank, which I don't normally carry. That's going to change. 200 gallons
means I don't have to fuel for months. |
200 gallons? who wants to drive around town carrying 1,600 pounds of fuel? i would rather pay a bit more for fuel than drive around with 4 drums of
fuel in my car |
No drums involved. Read again. As far as the weight no biggie in the right vehicle. Ever seen truck bed toolboxes? A lot f them have tanks in the
bottom, like mine. 105 gallons worth.
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by Roberto]
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Hook
Roberto, WHERE do you pay less for diesel than gas? Certainly not in the US or where I live in Mexico.
Once upon a time, yes, but not where I live, unless you are talking the ethyl pumps in Mexico.
Ethyl may be an antiquated term for higher octane gas, admittedly..........
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by Hook] |
Certainly not in the u.s., not for a long time. In mexico, it's been a while since I actually checked, I must admit, but up until fairly recently
there was a subsidy on diesel. I'll have to check again next week.
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
The United States does not need to import a single molecule of crude oil. Production from Alaska, California, the plains ans Texas is plenty. Look at
the oil production figures.
Refiners play a SHELL GAME. They sell ALL the domestic oil then import what we need. Therefore we have as big reliance on foreign crude. Talk to some
of the folks in Texas "They've got us P-nched way back".
And there ain't a damned thing I can do about it except bend over and grin.
|
|
|
Bajatripper
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3151
Registered: 3-20-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
You can blame the politics all you want, but the basic fact is that it's a FINITE resource--as in, when it's gone, it's gone. Some of you should
travel overseas a bit more, see what the rest of the world is paying for gasoline.
What I'd like to know is when will our government get behind RENEWABLE energy resources--and I don't mean that nasty, filthy nuclear energy, which is
ANYTHING but renewable. If you need a reminder of what I'm talking about, do a google search on ***ushima, a nuclear disaster still without a solution
and we're going on a year now.
There most certainly is but one side to every story: the TRUTH. Variations of it are nothing but lies.
|
|
|
cessna821
Nomad
Posts: 148
Registered: 9-17-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
A somewhat simplistic scenario here, but this is the truth about why gas prices will go much higher.
1. 2008 - sub prime real estate implodes and the banks catch a severe cold.
2. The banks can not be allowed to fail, (Bear Stearns and Lehman scared everyone silly!) so they were saved by using taxpayers money to bail them
out.
3. The banks then realised that they could no longer insure their loans in USA so went headlong and lent funds into European and other banks.
4. Being clever, they realised that their European debt insurances (collateral debt obligation - CDO's) could actually be insured more than once - in
many cases 10 times, and one whistleblower has shown proof that a loan was insured over 100 times! Nice lot of commissions there.
5. Greece gets into trouble for borrowing more than they can ever repay and their government securities which were to pay such handsome dividends now
are near worthless.
6. The banks in USA and Europe wanted to claim on these CDO's until everyone involved realises that there is not enough money IN THE WORLD to pay all
of the claims, so the banks have, by government decree, to forego their insurance claims and take a 'Haircut'. They will be lucky to get 10 cents on
the dollar!
Governments around the world are now printing money like crazy to make up the shortfall!
Which is why commodities of every kind are steadily on their way into orbit - oil is just one of them.
Be afraid, but organise your life accordingly - don't borrow from a bank, they are getting taxpayer funds at zero percent and charging you obscene
rates of interest, and it will get worse.
Try to stay clear of debt for the next ten years.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
We'll all be walking and burning candles before those "renewable" energy resources are economically feasible. They govt. has already dumped a ton of $$$ into some of those "renewable" energy companies and both the
companies and the govt. are going bankrupt.
|
|
|
soulpatch
Nomad
Posts: 404
Registered: 7-30-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
We'll all be walking and burning candles before those "renewable" energy resources are economically feasible. They govt. has already dumped a ton of $$$ into some of those "renewable" energy companies and both the
companies and the govt. are going bankrupt. |
Wow, this has wandered off topic.
Nobody ever seems to mention the billions we spend subsidizing oil when they mention the monies spent on renewable energy sources.
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Prove your point with some stats
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
No drilling+No pipeline = $6/gal gasoline. Thanks Obama and cronies. |
Since the price of oil is a product of an international commodities market, since the USA exports all its crude, and since the pipeline is to provide
crude to Texas refineries expressly for its export from the USA, and since such Canadian crude goes itself into the global inventory which is sold
through the international commodities market, Cypress, please take these factors into account and quantitatively prove your implied claim that Obama
will singularly be to blame for eventual $6/gal gasoline.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
We'll all be walking and burning candles before those "renewable" energy resources are economically feasible. They govt. has already dumped a ton of $$$ into some of those "renewable" energy companies and both the
companies and the govt. are going bankrupt. |
Cypress, are you against pursuing 'renewable' energy resources? Also, prove your implied assertion that such a pursuit is, in fact, not feasible at
this time or for the near future.
You know, making 'hit and run' accusations without any substance to back them up doesn't help anyone, nor does it provide any credibility to your
stark statements, but sharing your knowledge of your adequate and sufficient proof that lead you to your conclusions would.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
MitchMan, Proof of my conclusions? Prove Obama is to blame? Can you provide proof that I'm wrong? No substance to my accusations? Reality! Next time
you fill your vehicle up, give this a thought. Why am I defending an administration that has done everything possible to limit the USA's ability to
produce it's own oil? The last I heard Obama was promoting algae as the answer to our energy needs. Good grief.
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
MitchMan, Proof of my conclusions? Prove Obama is to blame? Can you provide proof that I'm wrong? No substance to my accusations? Reality! Next time
you fill your vehicle up, give this a thought. Why am I defending an administration that has done everything possible to limit the USA's ability to
produce it's own oil? The last I heard Obama was promoting algae as the answer to our energy needs. Good grief. |
Change the channel and you might learn something
|
|
|
cessna821
Nomad
Posts: 148
Registered: 9-17-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
My post above was to give the situation as I read about it.
This is not entirely about oil, but that's the commodity that hurst first.
The mainstream media are keeping quiet about this to some extent, I think so that they won't be accused of scaremongering, so you have to get the info
from somewhere else such as:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/oil-wont-stop-until-economy-br...
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yikes! A FOX fan and now a gold trader. More doomsayers please, this is fun. And Mitchman, asking for facts to support statements, come on, you'll
spoil the fun.
Where are the Illuminati foes? 
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by SFandH]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Cypress, you are the one making the claims, don't you think you aught to at least back up your assertions with some proof, or are we supposed to take
everything you say on faith because you say so?.
Where in my post did I defend Obama? Come on, quote me.
Didn't say that there was no substance to your accusations, I said that you simply haven't provided any substance to back up your accusations.
By the way, Cypress, did you know that the US produced more oil 2010 than any in any year since 2003 and that all forms of energy production have
increased? Cypress, did you know that more gasoline in the USA has been produced in each of the last 3 years of the Obama administration than at any
year since 1936? Cypress, did you know that millions of new acres in the US have been opened for oil and gas exploration during this administration?
Cypress, my little economics and energy omniscient Nomad friend, did you know that mining radioactive ore for nuclear plants has risen each of the
last 3 years, and that no other president has seen more energy produced from renewables (hydorelectric, wind, solar, and biofuels)? Cypress, did you
know that there has been a reduction in foreign oil dependence in recent years? Hmmmmm? Did you know that Obama has extended leases impacted by the
post-spill moratorium and called for annual lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and looks to offer up much of the Western and
Central Gulf and some waters off the Alaskan coast to oil and gas companies? You can check with the Energy Information Administration and other
nonpartisan authoritative sources for verification of the above if you don't believe me.
Now, see, Cypress, that's the way to support and provide substance for assertions. I am not asking you to do something that I am unwilling to do.
BTW, above is just some of the proof that you are wrong ... as usual. Now, be a responsible person, be a stand up guy, do something to defend your
credibility and prove or at least support your accusations.
The ball is in your court, Cypress.
Now, the next time you fill your vehicle up, give this a thought. Do I (Cypress) know what the hel I'm talking about? Do I have the courage and the
knowledge and the facts to back up my accusations or am I just talking out of my .....?
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7390
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
And for the recent spike in energy prices look to the incipient war/armed hostilities with a major producer who is capable of disrupting world wide
distribution, and will, Iran, and the frenzied oil futures traders betting upon that eventuality.
Oh yeah, just last week the NRC issued licenses to build new nuclear power plants in Georgia, the first since TMI.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-nrc...
[Edited on 2-24-2012 by SFandH]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
