ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 28, 2013 1:25:35 AM
Actually, gassprite was reprimanded by GB management for copyright infringement and obscene comments. "Big oil" was not involved. It was Republicans that gassprite was attacking, and since GB management is from Canada, it seems unlikely that partiality was involved.
[Edited by: ldheinz at 4/28/2013 1:31:29 AM EST]
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2013 11:14:08 AM
gassprite,
I tried to warn you that you would be attacked here for going after Big Oil and their subsidies.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 4:18:48 PM
gassprite, GB management HAS to be sensitive to copyright infringement, as their rears are on the line. Lawyers cost LOTS of money. I got reprimanded about that once a while back. Posting a link resolves the issue. Also, super long posts drive relevant comments way down the page. It's been used to make difficult questions "go away", and is considered very impolite.
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 4:12:22 PM
I'm leaving the politics forums. I got spanked a couple of times by GB. It's their candy store. So I'll go somewhere else for political talk. But if you want to know whether or not I washed my car or changed my oil today, you know where to check. LOL Thanks for a fun week or two.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 11:04:26 AM
gassprite - "I made an assertion."
More accurately, you made a BASELESS assertion. You provided no reason whatsoever to give it any credence at all. And:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
You are not assumed to be correct and I have to prove you wrong. You have to support your assertion or you SHOULD be ignored. For example, you state that two oil companies paid taxes. And your point is what? Companies (usually) pay taxes. Why is this relevant? You just assume your conclusion that they are doing something wrong, using the classic rhetorical fallacy of Begging the Question, aka Circular Reasoning. Also, your use of the word "subsidies" is highly questionable. Apparently you feel that it means "legal tax deduction, just like anyone else, except that this is someone that I don't like, so it shouldn't be allowed". Do you take "subsidies" on YOUR tax return? Does that make you evil?
However, this conversation is getting WAY off-topic. Let me try to address this. You have stated that you approve of subsidies for solar panels. Why are those evil subsidies suddenly good as long as the return on investment is far smaller or non-existent?
[Edited by: ldheinz at 4/26/2013 11:05:26 AM EST]
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,817
Points:1,009,685
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 11:01:42 AM
"I wonder if the wars for oil around the world can be considered gasoline company subsidies?"
Mind telling us what wars your referring to and how we got oil as a result. Not just opinion now but how about some actual links instead of flippantly telling others to do your research for you.
How much more do you thing oil companies should be taxed?
.
>>>• Data from the Energy Information Administration show that governments in the U.S. and abroad are hugely dependent upon the direct and indirect taxes paid by the largest consolidated oil companies, and that between 1981 and 2008 these tax payments exceeded corporate profits by 40 percent.
• Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments.
• Profits and income tax payments mirror the price of oil. In 1998 when the price was low, the industry paid just $733 million in federal and state income taxes. In 2006, with the real price of oil averaging over $63 per barrel, the industry paid a record $37 billion in corporate income taxes.
• Excise tax collections have grown steadily. Between 1981 and 2008, $1.1 trillion was collected in excise and sales taxes on petroleum products. In 1999 governments collected $59 billion, more than twice the industry's net profits that year.
• In severance, property and so-called windfall profit taxes, the industry paid more than $472 billion between 1981 and 2008.<<<
So right about now they actually pay more in taxes than they make in profits. And you want them to pay more taxes and you also want the price of gas to be 32 cents a gallon again.
Let me give you a hint here - companies cannot pay taxes - they can only collect them through the price of what they sell. The companies don't actually pay the tax - you do every single time you use any product that is connected to oil, made from oil, produced with oil or has any other connection with oil.
[Edited by: flyboyUT at 4/26/2013 11:02:42 AM EST]
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 10:38:14 AM
>>I wonder if the wars for oil around the world can be considered gasoline company subsidies?
To the extent that they help the oil companies operate, they should be considered subsidies. However, I haven't been talking about those subsidies. It's difficult enough to convince the ill informed that oil companies get the very easily documented subsidies they get. When you start talking about how each and every American life lost in the oil wars is a subsidy for the oil industry, the right will just shut down their sensory receptors all together.
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 10:31:36 AM
>>it's revealing that you insist that I do the research for your side of the debate. Why can't you support your opinion?
I'm not suggesting that you should do research for my side of the debate. I suggest that you do research to prove that I am wrong. I made an assertion. I've given you some evidence and your response is to ask me to give you more. I will when you give evidence that I am wrong. Now you assert that not many oil companies get susidies. I don't know how many do. But why should any of them get subsidies when oil is a well
established extremely profitable business.
Let's look at some oil companies that get subsidies.
Exxon-Mobile (the largest corporation in the world) paid an average of 14.2% in federal taxes. The base federal tax rate for corporations is 35%. Between 2008 and 2010 they received at least $226,969,757.00 in subsidies. I say at least because that is all that has been able to be documented. They probably received more.
Conoco Philips paid a much higher than average tax rate for the oil industry. The average tax paid by the oil industry between 2008 and 2010 was 15.7% despite the base rate being 35%. Conoco Philips paid 26.9%. I guess they didn't get as much in subsidies as the average oil company. They only received $65,428,128.00 in subsidies.
Chevron paid 24.8% tax 2008-2010. They got $8,846,658.00 in subsidies.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 10:25:15 AM
I wonder if the wars for oil around the world can be considered gasoline company subsidies?
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 9:45:10 AM
gassprite, it's revealing that you insist that I do the research for your side of the debate. Why can't you support your opinion?
That said, there are many companies that DO get subsidies, and to an obscene degree. Few of them are oil companies, though. Many of them are so-called "green" companies. Like, for example, the first one on your list, GE. In recent years GE has moved aggressively into "green" technologies like wind turbines, precisely because the government subsidies are generous there.
In fact, the bulk of energy subsidies go to so-called renewable energy.
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 6:48:17 AM
>>you provided a link to a site that considers ANY tax deduction to be a "subsidy".
I gave you a link to START your research. Please take some personal responsibility for informing yourself further. However, I am willing to accept the logical conclusion one can draw from your statement. That conclusion being that government subsidizes all businesses that get tax deductions. I think you've brought up an important point. That point is that there are huge corporations that receive so many subsidies that they pay little or no corporate at all. Among those that actually get more than they pay are:
GE that pays -45.3%
Pepco pays -57.6%
Paccar pays -30.5%
PG&E pays -21.2%
and the list goes on and on.
subsidy
/'s?bs?di/, noun (pl. subsidies):
According to the World Trade Organization, a subsidy is a transfer of funds or a potential transfer of funds from a government or public body through a grant, loan, equity infusion, or loan guarantee; a government fiscal incentive such as a tax credit; a government-provided good or service other than general infrastructure; or a government payment to a funding mechanism or private body to carry out one or more of the functions illustrated above.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 12:54:55 AM
gassprite, you provided a link to a site that considers ANY tax deduction to be a "subsidy". That is clearly ridiculous. Why should oil companies be singled out to be punished for keeping our economy moving? They deserve the same tax deductions as every other business.
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2013 10:46:35 PM
>>"In other words, you don't know... "
No. In other words, if you took 30 seconds to do a little research, the simplest kind of research that anyone with an internet connection and a computer can do, you will get the answer to your question. Here is a source for you to start with http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
subsidy
/'s?bs?di/, noun (pl. subsidies):
According to the World Trade Organization, a subsidy is a transfer of funds or a potential transfer of funds from a government or public body through a grant, loan, equity infusion, or loan guarantee; a government fiscal incentive such as a tax credit; a government-provided good or service other than general infrastructure; or a government payment to a funding mechanism or private body to carry out one or more of the functions illustrated above.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2013 2:17:53 PM
ldheinz - "How do they subsidize big oil? Other than with the tax deductions that all businesses receive, that is?"
gassprite - "I suggest you do a little googling and you'll find out plenty about how big oil is subsidized"
Shockjock1961 - "In other words, you don't know... "
IOW, *I* already know that "big oil" essentially ISN'T subsidized. They get normal tax deductions, and pretty much that's it. Those magical subsidies are just lies told by anti-progress people to get others to hate oil companies. Lots of politicians and oil company executives have come out against the non-existent subsidies for PR reasons, as they have nothing to lose.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2013 2:07:32 PM
"I suggest you do a little googling and you'll find out plenty about how big oil is subsidized"
In other words, you don't know...
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2013 1:57:22 PM
ldheinz>>How do they subsidize big oil? Other than with the tax deductions that all businesses receive, that is?
I suggest you do a little googling and you'll find out plenty about how big oil is subsidized. This is not even that big a partisan issue. There are many conservatives that support the abolition of these oil company perks. Good God! In the past even a couple of oil company execs said they don't need the subsidies anymore. Eliminating the big oil subsidies is a little like trying to get congress to pass background checks for gun ownership. Most Americans want it, but the powerful oil lobby doesn't. So, guess who wins.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2013 12:10:53 PM
"I do own solar panels, Shock. They are a great investment"
Did you hear that too?
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2013 11:49:59 AM
>>I thought you owned Solar panels. If so, you would have first hadn knowledge.<<
I do own solar panels, Shock. They are a great investment. Like I have said numerous times, Shock, but as usual you do not read what I write, I do not collect more than 100% of what I use. I hope to some day.
Do you have to pay your mother rent for living in her basement?
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2013 10:17:43 AM
gassprite - "After all, they still subsidize big oil. "
How do they subsidize big oil? Other than with the tax deductions that all businesses receive, that is?
|
gassprite
Champion Author
Toms River
Posts:1,060
Points:135,965
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2013 9:49:35 AM
No I don't have solar panels. Yes I think the government should help subsidize solar energy production by homeowners. After all, they still subsidize big oil. So why not subsidize clean energy that will one day help ensure a clean domestic supply of fuel that will gain our nation energy independence and greater national security.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2013 9:20:31 AM
Yet another subsidized domestic Solar Manufacturer goes belly-up...
SoloPower, the startup pitched as the most innovative player in Oregon solar manufacturing, will suspend its Portland operations in June and gut its remaining workforce.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:59:50 PM
"From what I hear"
From what you hear??? I thought you owned Solar panels. If so, you would have first hadn knowledge.
Obviously have caught you in a mistruth...
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 10:05:43 AM
Things must be different where you guys live. From what I hear, Southern California Edison only pays about 3 cents per kWh for electricity from solar panel owners. They turn around and sell that electricity at rates that range from 13 to 35 cents per kWh. How can a business survive with that small markup? LOL
|
oilpan4
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:12,041
Points:306,600
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 4:15:50 PM
"Their reasoning is that they are providing such a vital service to the earth by being 'green' that they should be compensated for it. "
They believe they are entitled to more money.
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,817
Points:1,009,685
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 11:16:29 AM
Speedy you may wish that that way of thinking was ridiculous - but we have many people here demanding just that. They want the power companies to pay them at retail rates for any excess power they may generate during the day and they want to only pay wholesale power for what they use during the dark times and they don't want to pay anything to be hooked to the grid.
Their reasoning is that they are providing such a vital service to the earth by being 'green' that they should be compensated for it.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 10:35:01 AM
"If a utility company pays x cents/dollars per kWh for electricity from a nuclear power plant"
That's the point of the article speedy. The utilities are planning on paying solar panel users ONLY what they pay for other electricity. The solar panel industry claims if they do that it will kill then industry...
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 10:30:11 AM
If I didn't already have solar panels on the roof of my house and I only read what Shock posts, I might believe that solar panels do not work.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 12:33:00 AM
>> Maybe they could come up with a monthly value to be hooked into the grid and solar folks have to pay this each month regardless.<<
We already have that, flyboy. I have gone over this a thousand times or more with you guys.
>>Right now it seems like they want free services.<<
Now you are just being ridiculous, flyboy.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 12:28:50 AM
If a utility company pays x cents/dollars per kWh for electricity from a nuclear power plant, the same utility company should pay the same x cents/dollars per kWh for electricity to the owner of the solar panels.
|
wbacon
Champion Author
Philadelphia
Posts:13,404
Points:2,981,310
Joined:Jun 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 6:17:10 PM
no
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 3:15:30 PM
"So you would rather, Shock, have the utility companies pay more for electricity to nuclear power plants, for example, than to owners of solar panels?"
Why would they pay more speedy?
80% of the electricity I use is Nuke generated, yet I pay 4.85 cents/Kwh, whereas someone with solar panels pays on the order of $.30 - $.45/Kwh.
You use false "logic" once again...
"Solar Energy Costs
Average system costs = $95 per square foot
Average solar panel output = 10.6 watts per square foot
Average solar energy system costs = $8.95 per watt
In order to compare the solar energy costs to conventional hydrocarbon fuels, we must covert the $8.95 per into KWH. Let’s make two calculations to measure the total electric energy output over the lifespan of the solar energy system. The first adjustment is to convert solar direct-current (DC) power to alternating current (AC) power that can be used for household appliances. The conversion of DC to AC power results in an energy loss of 10 percent for a solar energy system. The second calculation is to approximate total electric output by multiplying the average peak hours of sunlight (about 3.63 hours per day) times 365 days times 20 years (the product lifespan).
For our 5-KW solar energy system costing $45,000, the conversion to KWH is as follows:
5 KW times 90% = 4.5 KW – (Conversion of DC to AC power)
4.5 KW times 3.63 hours = 16 KWH per Day
16 KWH x 365 = 5,962 KWH – (Average Annual Output)
5,962 KWH x 20 years = 119,246 KWH – (Total output over 20 year lifespan)
So a $45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH. ($45,000 divided by 119,246 KWH)"
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,817
Points:1,009,685
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 1:01:57 PM
Maybe they should pay more to a Nukey plant Speedy - after all the reliable 24/7 power is worth more than a unstable fluctuating source that must be backstopped by other poser sources.
But I have no problem with paying the solar people a fair price for the power they produce - after they pay for the cost of being hooked into the grid. Now the best thing to do is if they whine too much just say - "take it or leave it. You are always free to go off grid completely."
Sure sounds fair to me. Maybe they could come up with a monthly value to be hooked into the grid and solar folks have to pay this each month regardless.
Right now it seems like they want free services.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 12:53:01 PM
So you would rather, Shock, have the utility companies pay more for electricity to nuclear power plants, for example, than to owners of solar panels?
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 11:02:20 AM
"I think you are misunderstanding, Shock. The power company does not want to pay those with solar panels a fair price for the electricity that their solar panels are collecting/earning."
I think you are the one who has it wrong speedy. The power company wants to pay what the power is worth. What they do want is for people who own Solar panels to pay for the power infrastructure they use, which can be up to half the cost of the electricty that the solar users are being credited for...
You really should educate yourself more on the subject speedy....
|
oilpan4
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:12,041
Points:306,600
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 10:53:58 AM
"So that's all it takes to kill the solar industry?"
Yes all it takes to kill the solar industry is forcing fair market prices on to it.
Pay fair market price, what a concept, lol.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 10:40:33 AM
I think you are misunderstanding, Shock. The power company does not want to pay those with solar panels a fair price for the electricity that their solar panels are collecting/earning.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 9:42:16 AM
Once again, reduce the subsidy, and the solar companies start to whining about how that will cripple the industry...
CPS Energy on Tuesday proposed cutting the amount it pays for solar power generated from residential customers roughly in half, angering clean-energy activists and system installers who say the cuts would cripple the local solar industry. “There was zero consultation with the solar industry in the development of this proposal,” said Lanny Sinkin, executive director of the advocacy group Solar San Antonio, who was made aware of the plan Monday night. “They're going to kill the solar industry.”
So that's all it takes to kill the solar industry? Make the people who own it pay the true costs involved?
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,019
Points:2,356,920
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 9:44:14 AM
101Speedster - "Or have enough solar panels on your house so that you can charge your electric car and never have to go to a Big Oil station again. "
And you'll never have to reach your destination ever again, either. Does AAA cover tows due to stupidity?
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 9:27:15 AM
"With, what, 100 square miles of solar panels in the California/Nevada desert."
Physically and economically impossible. Next...
"Just 496,905 square kilometers. That's really nothing compared to the total world area: Less than the surface of Spain (504,030 square kilometers) covered with solar panels, distributed across deserts and areas with almost 24/7 sun, all year around."
If 100 square miles is impossible 497,000 sqaure mile is nothing but an LSD fantasy. Keep dreaming speedy...
"Or have enough solar panels on your house so that you can charge your electric car and never have to go to a Big Oil station again"
Economically idiotic and unfeasible...
After all isn't that why you haven't done this speedy?
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 12:32:26 AM
How Many Solar Panels Would It Take to Power The Entire World?
>>Just 496,905 square kilometers. That's really nothing compared to the total world area: Less than the surface of Spain (504,030 square kilometers) covered with solar panels, distributed across deserts and areas with almost 24/7 sun, all year around.<<
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 12:24:46 AM
>>Speaking of changing the subject, how do you "break the chains of big oil" with solar panels?<<
With, what, 100 square miles of solar panels in the California/Nevada desert.
Or have enough solar panels on your house so that you can charge your electric car and never have to go to a Big Oil station again.
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2013 12:22:43 AM
>>You did that one thing how many years ago?<<
More than five years ago. What have you done, oilpan?
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2013 11:56:24 AM
"Did anyone notice Shock change the subject, BTW"
Where did I change the subject? the subject (which you brought up) was EV's. You know, those vehicles you keep saying everyone should buy while not doing so yourself.
Speaking of changing the subject, how do you "break the chains of big oil" with solar panels?
|
oilpan4
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:12,041
Points:306,600
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 10:16:22 PM
"I have solar panels on the roof of my house."
You did that one thing how many years ago?
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,817
Points:1,009,685
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 9:58:55 PM
If your like speedy thinks we should be and bought a Karma - you in a heap O trouble. Even at their stratospheric prices - they are going broke.
.
>>>Fisker Automotive laid off three quarters of its staff today to avoid bankruptcy while it seeks an angel with big bucks to help it become operational again.
The maker of the luxury hybrid Karma says it has “at least” $30 million in cash, and $15 million more due after settling a claim this week with its bankrupt battery maker A123 Systems, according to Reuters.<<<
Tell us again Speedy - just how good these overpriced spam cans on wheels are....
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 6:13:55 PM
I have solar panels on the roof of my house.
Did anyone notice Shock change the subject, BTW?
[Edited by: 101Speedster at 4/5/2013 6:15:14 PM EST]
|
oilpan4
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:12,041
Points:306,600
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2013 3:24:25 PM
"So far all you have been is talk and no action"
Thats what it looks like.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,107
Points:2,183,210
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 10:52:33 AM
"Which car are you spending $100,000 for, Shock'
Sorry speedy, unlike you, I'm fiscally conservative, and I wouldn't waste my money on a $100,000 car, no matter what it runs on.
You on the other hand keep talking about "breaking the chains of Big Oil"
So far all you have been is talk and no action...
|
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:30,413
Points:2,715,695
Joined:May 2005
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 10:32:55 AM
>>After all why would you spend $100,000 for a car to save a grand a year in energy cost to drive it and then be limited to how far you could drive it???<<
Which car are you spending $100,000 for, Shock?
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,174
Points:133,405
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2013 9:43:43 AM
QUOTE :::That is why electric cars are popular in states like California. We are breaking the chains of Big Oil.:::
It isn't Big Oil which has California in chains. Its the choking hands of big liberal controlled government, and its partner Big Enviro.
California probably has more oil in the ground than any state. Oil ought to be cheap and plentiful in California. Like it used to be before the crushing boot of the nanny state headquartered in Sacramento stepped on your heads.
|