Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

You didn't read the entire plan. I can't fix that either. Just like every other mere mortal, I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

guys, i'm in the middle of something but WILL respond. not shirking you, just busy

As I said, there was a bunch of 'camapign' political what's, but very little how's.

In other words it was very, very short on substance becasue I did read the entire thing.

In fact, I googled Ron Paul and gold standard and read this. It didn't answer my questions either.

And for the record, my questions are based on what happened when Andrew Jackson did away with the central bank and the consequences of his actions.

Aaron,

Ron Paul has been publically calling for restoring control of our currency to Congress. You've heard him say that, or read his written word on this topic, haven't you?

ziggy wrote:

What's more, if you spend any time at all on the highways you know that nobody else is conserving.

I see more smaller, more fuel-efficient cars on the road every month- ssemmingly every week- and fewer big cars and SUVs.

Too, only a year ago when I would drive 60 MPH down I-77, I was just about the slowest vehicle on the road, and traffic would tend to build up behind me. But today at 60 MPH I fit quite nicely intoi the flow of traffic in that right hand lane. Lots of people are driving slower than they were even a year ago.

OH, ..... you didn't see that unmarked SP Cruiser, ...... HUH?

Well now, that wasn't the case on I-79 between here and Morgantown, and back, ..... on Monday morning.

I-79 was pretty crowded ...... and bout everyone was "pushing" that 70 MPH limit.

.

Between Fairmont and Morgantown you can't go 70 MPH. They'd run you over.

Aaron wrote:That's all well and good Frank and I'm all for conserving. In fact, I think the government should mandate higher MPG standards and lower the national speed limit back to at least 65. I think there should be some incentives for auto manufactures that look for the next vehicle that will travel a hundred miles on a gallon or uses an altertanitive fuel.

Aaron, do you know the bestest way to increase the MPG ...... and thus have big savings on fuel and its cost?

For one thing, ya do the same as the airlines are doing.

Ya cut the mass (weight) of what you are moving.

But the simplest thing to do is, ...... lower the speed limit to 55 MPH ..... and eliminate most of those safety features and anti-pollution controls that are mandated by the government ........ and install a "sensor" in the exhaust that will "shut er down" if the engine is not burning clean.

Ya know Aaron, I have never been able to figure out ..... how one can "burn" bout three (3) times as much gasoline as they need to burn to go a specified distance ..... and cause less pollution in doing so.

Now that question has been "bugging me" ever time I think about that 1951 Henry J that I owned and which would get bout 42 mpg. Thus, I was "burning" one (1) gallon of gas to go as far as some people today go who "burn" three (3) gallons of gas.

And Aaron, I was justa thinking, .... all these new "electric hybrid" vehicles coming on the market ...... will be great .... for summer, ..... flat terrain .... and/or southern latitude driving.

But they won't be worth a shidt ..... for wintertime, ..... hilly terrain ..... and/or northern latitude driving.

GEEEEZE, ya would "run your battery down" ..... just trying to defrost your windshield so ya could see ta drive.

.

ohio county wrote:Between Fairmont and Morgantown you can't go 70 MPH. They'd run you over.

.

Sam the hybrids do better for city commuting. The ones I checked on really dont help much at speeds over 35 mph.

But up to 35 they run almost exclusively on battery power.

But the gas engine still is used for heat and a/c.

But for someone who is retired and living in town and just uses a vehicle to buzz around at low speed down to the pub and go get cigarettes and groceries they would probably be a good deal.

shermangeneral wrote:Sam the hybrids do better for city commuting. The ones I checked on really dont help much at speeds over 35 mph.

But up to 35 they run almost exclusively on battery power.

But the gas engine still is used for heat and a/c.

UH HUH, ...... and in wintertime in the Northern latitudes they will be exclusive "running" on the gas engine.

And in the summertime in the Southern latitudes they will be exclusive "running" on the gas engine.




.

Well like I said they substantially increase mpg if the bulk of your driving is below 35 mph.

I see more and more of them around the bigger metro areas, but often they are running 65-70 and fooling themselves.

HI Sherm,

I rented a Prius a few months back and could not believe the mileage I got. I did a lot of driving both city and rural, and I recommend them to anyone who can afford them.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Ron Paul has been publically calling for restoring control of our currency to Congress. You've heard him say that, or read his written word on this topic, haven't you?

Actually no I haven't. What I've heard is sound bytes of going back to the gold standards. When I ask the specific questions I've ask, no one, including Dr. Pauls writings, have been able to answer the question.

I think you guys are confused about hybrids. I think you guys are referring to the 'battery' operated test cars that came out some time ago.

I know a couple who have a Prius and as Mike said, they get great mileage which is supposed to be getting better. It runs at the same speeds as other comparative cars with 4 cylinder engines and yes, they run in WV.

The problem, as Mike alluded to, is in the price. They're about 50% more for a similar sized car. I don't know what the payoff would be for $4.00 gas, but for $2.50 gas, you would have to own it for 6+ years to make up the savings.

Once a manufacture comes up with a car that gets that kind of MPG but sells for a reasonable price, they'll corner the market and make billions.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Ron Paul has been publically calling for restoring control of our currency to Congress. You've heard him say that, or read his written word on this topic, haven't you?

Actually no I haven't. What I've heard is sound bytes of going back to the gold standards. When I ask the specific questions I've ask, no one, including Dr. Pauls writings, have been able to answer the question.

Well he has, for years.

I don't have the time to find an online source for you. He has discussed it, I have seen him discuss it. Dr. Paul correctly points out that the Constitution lists the manufacture and control of currency as a power of Congress. He believes (and I agree with him) that they didn't have the Constitutional authority to delegate that authority to a private bank.

If Congress reclaims its authority over currency, as Dr. Paul advocates, the Federal Reserve won't be able to print more fiat money in misguided attempts to correct problems it continues to create.

OK. I could possibly agree with that if I read the details.

But that's not what you've advocated here. On here, you state we should return to the gold standard. So which is it, return to the gold standard or return control of the currency to Congress?

Aaron wrote:OK. I could possibly agree with that if I read the details.

But that's not what you've advocated here. On here, you state we should return to the gold standard. So which is it, return to the gold standard or return control of the currency to Congress?

Speaking for myself, not for Dr. Paul here.

Both. First Congress needs to reclaim control of currency.

Then we return to a standards based system, over time.

Then how do you account for the huge differential in the amount of currency in circulation vs. what we have on hand in gold? I mean we're talking $trillions here? You can't just arbitrarily raise the price of gold as that would be the same as 'printing' more.

And how do you account for the increasing population?

Aaron wrote:Then how do you account for the huge differential in the amount of currency in circulation vs. what we have on hand in gold? I mean we're talking $trillions here? You can't just arbitrarily raise the price of gold as that would be the same as 'printing' more.

And how do you account for the increasing population?

Those are reasons why the switch needs to be gradual and allow for other commodities besides gold included in the standard. Also, if you recall, I personally advocate for hold the Federal Reserve and its officers and owners financially responsible for the fraud they have been perpetrating on the American people.

I think people in this country have become so accustomed to inflation and the shrinking value of our currency you simply can't imagine any alternative. Perhaps rather than printing more currency, the value of the currency increases. If the value of the currency increases, individuals will require less of it. Combined with other commodities we won't need more gold.

I was talking to a young lady driving one of those Dodge Smarts the other day. She claims to be getting a paltry 35 mpg out her two-seater.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Then how do you account for the huge differential in the amount of currency in circulation vs. what we have on hand in gold? I mean we're talking $trillions here? You can't just arbitrarily raise the price of gold as that would be the same as 'printing' more.

And how do you account for the increasing population?

Those are reasons why the switch needs to be gradual and allow for other commodities besides gold included in the standard. Also, if you recall, I personally advocate for hold the Federal Reserve and its officers and owners financially responsible for the fraud they have been perpetrating on the American people.

I think people in this country have become so accustomed to inflation and the shrinking value of our currency you simply can't imagine any alternative. Perhaps rather than printing more currency, the value of the currency increases. If the value of the currency increases, individuals will require less of it. Combined with other commodities we won't need more gold.

What was it, 1994 when we bailed out Mexico. And then 97/98 we did the same thing for Japan individually and then most of Asia as well. How many other countries have we bailed out and now their currency is stong against the dollar.

Now I'm no expert but I think there needs to be another world monetary summit in the manner of BW and I think it is in the best interest of all countries to come up with some sort of agreement.

Perhaps, while not being backed directly to gold, an agreement could be made to link to the price of gold or something of that matter.

ohio county wrote:I was talking to a young lady driving one of those Dodge Smarts the other day. She claims to be getting a paltry 35 mpg out her two-seater.

Hell, I get better then that on my bike.

I cut my grass again this morning with my reel mower. I can't tell you all how much fun that is. Why, oh why don't I lose any weight doing that?

Ziggy & Jeremy & Co. should be very pleased with me.

ohio county wrote:I was talking to a young lady driving one of those Dodge Smarts the other day. She claims to be getting a paltry 35 mpg out her two-seater.

That is hard to believe. Apparently she does not know how to figure her gasoline mileage.

Heck, I get 30 MPG with my Chrysler Sebring V-6 with automatic transmission.

Our son gets about 32 MPG with his Chevy Impala.

I know someone who gets really good gas mileage, ...... ..... he lies about it.

.