Shades of Chavez. Are you libs sure you really want this? What next?

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18

What a bunch of garbage you have been posting lately.

You know Deane I'm glad you're running scared. You now know what most of us have been feeling for nearly 8 years.

What you can't control you spin.

Chris: What part of-

"House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries"

isn't clear?

How is this socialism?

"How is this socialism?"

What would you call it?

" Chris: What part of-

"House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries"

isn't clear? "

The part that doesn't say that when I click the link. But thanks for asking.

"What would you call it?"

Certainly not socialism. But if that is what you need to call it to spin it in your head be my guest.

You fear tactics are just so underwhelming.

"The part that doesn't say that when I click the link. But thanks for asking."

I don't know what browser you're using, but I didn't type it, I cut and pasted direct from the headline.


Chris: Naïveté on the part of libs is very dangerous. When the Dems have control of Congress and the White House, you're going to see this kind of thing, your taxes will rise, and government control of you life will be increased. Just wait and see. The Chavez followers were fooled, the Castro followers were fooled, guess who's next.

Go ahead if you wish. Believe utopia is on it's way. I'll watch your reaction in 4 years.

The umbrella of the term socialism is pretty broad. "Nationalization" of any means of production, such as a refinery, fits in under the umbrella, according to Wikipedia's definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Quote:
"As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history."

The Wikipedia article goes into great detail on the history of various examples of socialist ideologies, political movements, and governments.

Having said that, the term "socialism" is often used as a slur to evoke memories of the Cold War and the lack of rights of citizens of the USSR and satellite states during that time.

" the term "socialism" is often used as a slur to evoke memories of the Cold War and the lack of rights of citizens of the USSR and satellite states during that time. "

OK - well that makes more sense to me now. I could never relate to why a few around here had such a hard-on for using that term; It stems from another generation's boogy man speak.

Thanks Alfredo.

Ah yes playing the old "you're so naive card."

I don't believe utopia is on it's way. I don't believe Obama is a "savior" for the dems. What I do believe is Obama will have such a mess to clean up it will take him both terms to even make a dent.

He will make some mistakes and do somethings no doubt I will disagree with.

The sky is falling, just you wait and see fear, fear, fear drum beat is fading.

You should have seen my reaction 4 years ago when Bush won for a second term. You would have questioned my religious beliefs.

The term socialism is a term that right wingers use to scare people. Because scaring people is the only play in their book right now.

Deane, apparently one Democrat (Maurice Hinchey of New York) said the US should "own the refineries." That's a far cry from "House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries."

Right, next time a Republican in the Congress makes some odd right-wing remark we'll blast it as, "House Republicans call for fascism" just to keep consistent with your level of discourse and paranoia, Deane.

Andrew

From tasteless monkey dolls to racist buttons to the "socialism" boogieman, this is just the beginning. Give ‘em credit, they're living up to their reputation.

Does a school district or state college need to turn a profit to be successful and serve the common good?

Does a water bureau or public utility need to turn a profit to be successful and serve the common good?

Does a fire department need to turn a profit to be successful and serve the common good?

Does a civic infrastructure element like sewer or road maintenance need to turn a profit to be successful and serve the common good?

Does a law enforcement agency need to turn a profit to be successful and serve the common good?

Would you agree that all of these are important and fundamental parts of a modern civilization?

How about fuel for heating and transportation?

Given the current circumstances, and the fact that 176 refineries have closed in the last 25 years, our leaders need to explore a number of tough solutions. This is an artificial shortage. In almost any other country at war, and at other times in our own history, the populace, press and pols would be considering eminent domain. It is the duty of companies to shoulder the burden of national sacrifice or risk seizure.

Petrochemical influence is a top down problem in our government, yet the average Joe at the pump does not see that OPEC and the White House are skipping hand in hand through the garden. Oil profiteering is an epidemic, yet many members of congress have opposed a windfall tax year after year.

If these were corporations that had a sensible margin, a solid record of environmental stewardship, gladly made investments in new sources of fuels and had a vested interest in sensible foreign policy, it would be different. Instead, they buy oil from dictatorships and warlords, destabilize already poor nations, breed anti-American sentiment and expect our soldiers to have their back. Meanwhile, at five dollars a gallon, we are expected to pretend that nobody suffers for our brutal conveniences, even as we suffer.

The oil giants have shown no responsibility to a country that sheds blood every day for their gain. Our own leadership continues to stock our oil reserves at $135 a barrel even though they are at 97% capacity. At this juncture, it makes sense to discuss a long-term solution to a problem that has only been made worse by the executive branch, insiders and lobbyists. I believe that any talk of a nationalized energy plan is a bluff, but if it is not, I would support a sensible approach to such a move. Perhaps it would motivate an industry to remember the golden adage: The customer is always right.

" The customer is always right."

Even about Monkey Dolls.

When we chose to tie our money to oil and let go of the gold standard, it was only a matter of time that what we have today was going to happen. All it took was one moron in the White House.

Another comment from Deane: Chris: Naïveté on the part of libs is very dangerous. When the Dems have control of Congress and the White House, you're going to see this kind of thing, your taxes will rise, and government control of you life will be increased. Just wait and see. The Chavez followers were fooled, the Castro followers were fooled, guess who's next.

I really want to understand how someone could possibly think that the next four years under Barack Obama would be worse than eight years of George W. Bush? Like others have said on this board, Barack Obama will need at least four years, perhaps more, to clean up the colossus of messes left behind by George W. Bush and company.

As for taxes being raised – well, it costs money to live in America. Like I’ve said in the past, the Republicans sold people on the idea that they could have it all and not pay a dime for it. Sadly, that’s how a derelict (or snake oil salesman) operates. Bills are coming due and we’ve got to pay the piper. A good start is sun setting the Bush tax cuts and rescinding the billions in tax credits for big oil. Just think of the HUGE surplus President Clinton left us after his eight years in office. And Republicans have the gall to call themselves strong fiscal stewards of the nations pursue?

As for Chavez and Castro – well, the same could be said of George W. Bush. That’s why only 25 percent of the American people trust him. He’s a hapless liar and we’re paying the price.

"When the Dems have control of Congress and the White House"

That has a nice ring to it.

Of course nationalization of refineries is socialism. What kind of nation are we going to be if we allow the GOVERNMENT to confiscate private property on such a large scale?

What's next? Nationalization of private power companies such as PGE, PP&L? They'll say that electricity has to be nationalized because it will serve "the common good".

Nationalization of grocery stores? They'll say that food supplies must be nationalized because it will serve "the common good".

Nationalization of radio stations, television stations, newspapers, magazines, web sites like pdxradio, they'll say government must nationalize media because it's the only way to serve "the common good".

Forget about arguing with them, Deane. They drank the groupthink koolaid. They don't care about a logical discussion dealing with only the facts of socialism. They're in full lemming mode. That's what is truly frightening about their denial of what socialism is all about. Truly frightening.

They'll be in favor of socialism as long as it isn't THEIR property that's stolen from them by the government.

Groupthink:
Illusion of Invulnerability:
Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

Collective Rationalization:
Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

Illusion of Morality:
Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

Excessive Stereotyping:
The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

Pressure for Conformity:
Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

Self-Censorship:
Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.

Illusion of Unanimity:
Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.

Mindguards:
Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

Watch now, Deane. Instead of admitting that nationalization of privately owned refineries is, de facto, socialism, they'll say at least Obama isn't George Bush. They'll say that the evil oil companies deserve a government takeover. They'll call their opponents names. They'll attempt to rationalize government theft of private property with the same lame arguments they've already used: government's theft of privately owned refineries is for the "public good".

The Constitution doesn't matter to them. Private property rights don't matter to them. It's too late, they drank the koolaid.

Theft is theft. Even when the government does it. ESPECIALLY when the government does it. And no amount of putting their left wing heads in the groupthink sand will change those facts.

Again, one single Democratic congressman apparently suggested that the government ought to own the refineries and that is twisted into meaning that all the Democrats in congress are clamoring for socialism...

Andrew

Theft is theft.

So, it would follow that an industry that has stolen from every citizen of our country ought to be held accountable. This is an industry that has almost single-handedly put our nation and others at risk for terror attacks, environmental disasters and economic collapse. Coincidentally, all three of those challenges have been met with ineptitude, corruption and profiteering by our current administration.

I still believe that telling the oil industry that it bears a responsibility for our current crisis is correct. I still believe that requiring them to be part of the solution is simply encouraging good business. This is not a socialist concept. It is an American concept. We are not a security state full of corporations. We are a democracy full of people. I think that one member of congress playing a bit of political poker was a smart thing to do. Look at how it got your dander up.

No wonder it's called extremism.

Hey Wobboh, go ahead and cling to your religion and your gun. Clearly you need both.

There you have it, folks. Theft of private property is now an American concept. No wonder it's called extremism. koolaid version.

That was a good one, Vitalogy! Thanks for the evening laugh.

To be honest, I think you've provided the laugh, so I should be thanking you...

We'll have to cling (pronounced HIDE) our guns if that gun hating Obama is elected.

The right-wing paranoia here knows no bounds.

Andrew

Only if you're a criminal or someone looking to illegally obtain a gun. If you obey the law like you claim, you should be okay.

I do obey the law. But I won't if they try registration.

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

"What kind of nation are we going to be if we allow the GOVERNMENT to confiscate private property on such a large scale?"

The same kind of government that currently confiscates private property on a less large scale on a daily basis. There is eminent domain, when the private property owner is compensated fairly. There is condemnation, with similar compensation. And there is forfeiture of property as punishment for a crime, such as paying a fine, where there is no compensation. Oh, and don't forget taxes, which is a massive confiscation of private property.

These things happen all the time in America, and in almost every case we deem government's actions to be reasonable and warranted. But we must not be socialist yet, because according to Wobboh and Deane we still must fear it's arrival.

So, if seizure of the refineries by the government in order to preserve the security and economy of the citizens of the United States (and to take away control from profiteering, economy-destroying neocapitalists) is deemed equally necessary as the above actions, why would that push us over the socialism line? If that's all it takes, then we're there already.

As predicted. Here come the personal attacks. You people are so predictable.

Whaaaahhhhh!!! Go ahead and play the victim Wobboh, it's what your ilk do best. If you're gonna come in here and stir up the nest, expect to be stung.

"Registration is the first step to confiscation."

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Registration would enforce legal use. That's why we all have to register our cars, dogs, right to vote, marriages, etc.

So, Oh Wise Wobboh, answer my question. With all the current government 'taking' of property going on now, are we currently a socialist nation?

And what would be unique about government seizure of the oil refineries (not unprecedented during war or national crisis, as LS pointed out) that would push over the line into socialism?

I'm not a supporter of the idea of nationalizing petroleum refineries, but I think that very liberal doses of exaggeration are being employed in the Fox News story and in the way that story is being presented here. Note that the linked story says "Democrats" call for nationalization of refineries, but of all the quotes given, only one--Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)--says anything related to the subject. On top of that, Rep. Hinchey only expresses the opinion that he thinks things would be better if refineries were nationalized. He is not pushing any kind of plan or bill to nationalize anything.

Registration would enforce legal use.

No it won't. It would only affect the law abiding gun owners.

The criminals don't give a rats patootie about the laws.

They buy stolen guns out of the trunk of some other thugs car in a dark alley. Do you really think they are going to register that gun???

If you honestly think that registration is going to affect the criminal use of guns, you are living in a dream world.

What we really need is to have the existing gun laws strictly enforced.

It is by definition IMPOSSIBLE for law abiding gun owners to be affected by registration. You obey the law, you shall be just fine.

And that will reduce gun crime how?

Specifics please.

I too support this idea.

We "socalize" lots of things. We do this so that risk is distributed and profit is not the primary driving factor behind the operation of that "thing".

Health care is an up and coming "thing" that we need to do this with. Refineries are another, of course.

The way I see it, if we leave profit as the primary motivator, then there are strong incentives to both

-make us pay the max, because there really isn't all that much competition.

Remember all the mega mergers folks. If we allow those, we eliminate robust competition. Can't have it both ways and end up having the thing serve us well.

-cut corners everywhere.

This one is significant in that the elements of the infrastructure that are expensive to maintain, often don't see that work done. Why? Because it cuts into profit.

The beauty of that is that we, the tax payer, carry the risk while they collect the profit.

This is wrong.

Either we regulate them more strongly, break them so that competition is robust and working in our interests, or we nationalze it and then have service to us and safety be the primary drivers for decisions made about how it operates.

**for luxery goods, I don't hold these views, only for necessary goods common to most all people. Utilities and core services, in other words.

Big business has shown, over and over and over, that it will exploit us to the max, while doing the very least. Again, for luxery goods, that's all good.

For basic things where not managing them well has serious life consequenses for people, it's not all good.

If the shareholders are the primary responsibility, then we don't matter, the environment does not matter, etc...

With refineries, these things need to matter, thus there is a strong case for forcing it to matter.

So pick one: robust completion, regulation, socialization / nationalization

,or

make the case that we should be suffering so that extreme profit can be made.

The libs won't let us drill in Anwar
The libs won't let us drill off the coast of California
The libs won't let us drill in the Gulf of Mexico
The libs won't let us drill off the coast of Florida
The libs won't let us drill within the U.S.
The libs won't let build any new refineries
High gas prices are George Bush's fault.

Yep.

Ditto that "yep".

Why? Because it's becoming clear that it's not about oil availability. It's about rampant speculation and market manipulation. This is Bush's last big gift to his corporate cronies before the GOP loses the White House.

Here's the story from CNN.

Here's more of the story.

We can agree wholeheartedly on the speculation issue. It shouldn't be allowed. I'd love to see some speculators bite the big one.

I think that any oil sources within the US should first supply the US. Then if reserves are at peak any surplus could then be sold to other countries. Take care of our own with our own first!

As leader of the GOP, Bush could call on the Republican Party to close the "Enron Loophole" that is allowing the current speculation, and they would team with the Democrats to get it done. And they could do it right now, today. And the price of gas would fall 25-50% by the end of summer. Man, what a boon that would be for McCain and the GOP - the party that reaches across the aisle, and the party and leads us toward economic energy sanity.

But it ain't going to happen. Bush is feathering his bed for when he leaves in 2009, and taking care of all his oil buddies.

Yes, through his inaction, high gas prices are most definitely Bush's fault.

Any why the heck should we trust the oil companies? They are amongst the most corrupt industries in the world. Their behavior is replusive -- and begs the question -- why should anyone trust these greedy SOB's?

Congressman Peter DeFazio has accused the oil industry of hoarding oil in the ground — by not developing existing leases — in order to drive up prices.

The industry replies that oil and natural gas are not necessarily found on federal land already leased or available for lease.

DeFazio, D-4th District, started the latest round of this argument with a press release Tuesday. He had joined nine other Democrats in introducing HR 6251, the “Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008.”

He said the bill was intended to force oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both on and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle.

“Americans are struggling to make ends meet and yet, Big Oil is restricting domestic production on federal leases and as a result, enjoying record profits,” DeFazio said in his statement. “This measure will put an end to it.”

It would seem reasonable that they be required to drill on any property they have leased for that purpose, or give up the lease so someone can drill.

Any oil drilled in America will be sold to the highest bidder abroad and would not stay here in America. You can count on that.

Skybill, gun registration would lower crime because it would require people to be more responsible with their firearms, and would allow law enforcement to not only match the gun to the crime, but also connect the registered owner of the gun to the crime. Pretty simple concept. So if you follow the law, you should be just fine...just like if you aren't talking to terrorists, you have nothing to worry about if someone is eavesdropping on you.

"Any why the heck should we trust the oil companies? They are amongst the most corrupt industries in the world. Their behavior is replusive -- and begs the question -- why should anyone trust these greedy SOB's?"

Oil companies are corrupt and greedy? How about hypocritical leftist politicians, along with their lobbyist pals? I'll also throw in fellow traveling abortion providers, just for good measure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/13/chris-dodd-kent-conrad-ti_n_106925.html

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-dodd0619.artjun19,0,962475.story

Plenty of liberal democrats appear to have no problem feeding at the trough of the corporations they so decry. Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.

Herb

Once again, Herb falls flat on his face. Oil companies have engaged in some of the exploitive practices in the world -- with the indigenous peoples of many oil producing dying needlessly as multinational petrochemical concerns pocket record amounts of money. Gee Herb, do these firms reinvest in the countries where they drill for oil? Not hardly. Rather, they become repositories for murder. But because most of these people are not evangelical Christian, I guess they only count as 3/5 a person in your book.

I guess Talpdx, that you support the oil companies and the things you say they do with your money, or do you just ride a bicycle?

I take the bus and walk. But again Deane, you miss the point completely. Yet that should come as no surprise to anyone. Your complete ignorance about most issues tells us all a rather unflattering story -- so we just grin and bear your rather opaque posts.

Naw, Deane. Talpdx is simply mouthing scare america's talking points.

Just like commies in the former Soviet Union, they'll try to nationalise businesses, like the oil companies.

Then they'll come after your own car itself.

After all, once you seize property of one sort, what's the big difference?

What they won't tell you is that the former Soviet Union then killed between 30 and 40 million Kulachs, or working farmers since they were landowners.

Tis a slippery slope with these slippery liberals.

Herb

Riiiiiiiiight.

Say Herb, please contribute to my Slippery Slope thread.

Nationalizing the oil industry would never happen. It simply is not practical. But FOX News must have received Senator McCain’s daily talking points memo on his flip flop on oil drilling and wanted to lead with a scare fluff piece about one member of Congress making reference to nationalizing refineries.

But if the oil industry continues to behave in such a caviler manner, it's going to find itself in an even more uncomfortable spot than it currently sits. Not only the repeal of their $18 billion dollars in tax breaks, but perhaps a windfall profits tax. Not even millions of dollars in self serving infomercials produced by the petrochemical industry can save them from being perceived as being deplorably greedy. And it has been their own conduct that has put them in that position.

"I take the bus and walk."

Real men don't ride buses and walk.

Yes Deane, they most certainly do. But given that you're a neanderthal, we'll forgive the oversight.

>>Real men

drive a Corolla at 40mpg!

Deane: WTF?

Please define "real men".

(This should be hilarious)

Real men drive SUVs or trucks that get 9 mph and are covered with mud.

9. I Wish I got 9. I get 9 gallons to the mile.

But chicks dig it.

Yes, "real men" need those trucks with mud on them to make up for their small penises. This condition is also indicitive of smaller intelligence as well, which may lead them to vote GOP.

"I think that any oil sources within the US should first supply the US. Take care of our own with our own first!"

I agree, DT!

Domestic oil production was providing more than enough for the needs of the region in the not so distant past. Alaska and California were producing a surplus that kept heating fuel and gasoline prices low on the West Coast during the early 1990s. Our consumer friendly market gravely concerned the oil companies and they pressed for a lifting of the Alaska North Slope export ban.

In 1995, the Republican-controlled Congress was happy to oblige. Opening up our domestic production and oil reserves to foreign markets was put on the fast track. GOP Rep. Thomas of California introduced H.R. 70 and it passed the House. In the vote, Oregon Representatives were split down partisan lines. Cooley and Bunn voted aye while Furse, DeFazio and Wyden voted nay. Of the Washington delegation, only Republican Doc Hastings voted for the resolution. Merely lifting the ban was not enough for the industry, so when the bill reached the Senate, oil allies took it even further.

Republican Sen. Murkowski of Alaska introduced S. 395 and it largely reflected the earlier House bill. Though a few local concessions were made, it provided a historic amount of red meat for the industry. Subsidies and incentives replaced tax payments. Alaskan resources could be readily exported to other nations and even more giveaways were authorized for the oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico:

Section 302 - Declares that, with specified exceptions, no royalty payments shall be due on new production from any lease or unit located in specified water depths in the Western and Central Planning Areas of the Gulf until certain volumes of oil equivalent are produced.

Section 303 - Provides for new leases and lease sales on the basis of a cash bonus bid meeting certain criteria.

Section 304 - Suspends royalties for a five-year period for new leases in specified water depths in the Gulf. Subjects sales of such leases to such cash bonus bidding system.

This one bill rolled back many decades of scientific data, conservation efforts and sensible planning. Tax revenue was swapped for subsidies and deficit. The vote split the Democrats 23 to 22. Oregon Sen. Hatfield and Washington Sen. Gordon were two of the three Republicans who voted against the bill. Sen. McCain of Arizona voted aye. Oregon Sen. Packwood voted aye while Washington Sen. Murray voted nay. Bowing to the desires of the oil industry, President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 28, 1995.

According to an April 1996 report in the Oil & Gas Journal:

"Against the backdrop of more than 20 years of increasingly stringent environmental regulation, ever-expanding exploration and development moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf, and reductions in producer tax incentives, oil and natural gas exploration companies active in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico recently won a significant legislative victory. On Nov. 28, 1995, President Clinton signed into law S.395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act. Title 3 of S.395 embodies the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. This landmark legislation provides substantial incentives for oil and natural gas production in the gulf of Mexico by temporarily eliminating royalties on certain deepwater leases. It is the first direct incentive for oil and gas production enacted at the federal level in many years."

The same issue of the industry journal also had this chestnut:

"The U.S. Bureau of Land Management plans to begin talks with producing states on how it can delegate to them control over onshore federal oil and gas leases. The move is part of a BLM campaign to make its processes more efficient as it fulfills its role as the U.S. oil and gas producing industry's biggest landlord."

Thus, ladies and gentlemen, began a new dark age and the big giveaway of our natural resources. It was not without consequences to all of us.

According to an NCSE report published eight years ago in April of 2000, the writing was already on the wall for our current crisis:

"The West Coast oil glut elicited persistent expressions of concern from oil producers displeased with what they perceived as artificially depressed prices. Early efforts to achieve remedial action failed to establish traction until 1995, when low world oil prices, a relatively benign level of oil imports (8.0 mbd - in contrast to a current level of 9.7 mbd) and a supportive Department of Energy (DOE) coincided with renewed legislative efforts in both Houses of Congress.

A June 1994 DOE study, Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil-Benefits and Costs, found that exporting Alaska crude would increase producer receipts for both California and Alaska oil. The increased producer receipts would be the result of transportation savings realized by avoiding a trip through the Panama Canal. Additionally, DOE predicted larger producer revenues at the wellhead would result in 100,000 bd more output from Alaska and California than would be the case with continued export restriction.

Absent a conclusive case for the oil's being needed in the United States, and with no measurable cost and substantial projected benefits, bills in the House and Senate (H.R. 70 and S.395) passed by large margins, 324-77 and 74-25 respectively. The Clinton Administration supported ANS crude exports and the President signed P.L. 104-58 in November 1995.

Since 1995, Alaska oil production has fallen by about 0.5 mbd. The output drop is larger than the West Coast surplus was in 1995, when it was estimated at 300,000 bd. Indigenous California crude production has declined about 10% since 1995. Moreover, output from the federal offshore has remained constant. It appears as if there is no current oversupply.

If the West Coast oil glut has disappeared because of falling production and there is no persistent oversupply, exported oil is being replaced by imported crude during a time when petroleum supply is tight and prices have risen sharply. Gasoline prices in particular have risen more on the West Coast than elsewhere in the nation. DOE reports that as of March 20, 2000, West Coast pump prices were $1.73 per gallon, 22 cents above the $1.51 national average. While pump prices - particularly in California - have been higher than in the rest of the country for the past few years because of local environmental requirements and other factors, a differential this large is extraordinary. Not surprisingly, the West Coast gasoline pricing situation has resulted in consumer complaints and assertions that crude exports are one cause."

Our current situation is due to shortsighted decisions, bi-partisan bumbling and lobbyist influence. In case you folks just skimmed and missed the meat, let me restate it in simple terms: The good will of this region was abused when our government gave industry a mandate to raise our prices above the national average. This was obvious when a gallon of gas was just under a $1.75 in 2000. Today, we have been screwed so long at the pump that a buck seventy-five for gasoline would be welcome relief.

This country is at war, but big oil does not care. High prices have created the perception that we need to open up even more areas to domestic production. Now, without exploring thousands and thousands of current leases, they want even more fields and incentives, including rigs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Reminding them that the American people own this great nation is long overdue.

Nice one ED!!!! LOL

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

Since when?

@Broadway: Heck yes!

Mine gets over 40 on the freeway. That's at 270K miles too.

deane sez: "Real men don't ride buses and walk."

They ride scooters and wheelchair vans.

"Mine gets over 40 on the freeway. That's at 270K miles too."

I just bought a VW pickup truck with a diesel engine. First test of mixed driving returned 41 MPG. (Still have the 3 cylinder Geo too -- just had a brand new top made and new seat upolstery put on!)

Skep, you have some sensible biodiesel options in the Valley. I remember filling up a few years ago at Grease Works in Corvallis when it was a tiny shop. Now, SeQuential is growing in leaps and bounds. The legendary Willie Nelson is in on the biodiesel revolution and an outspoken proponent of the technology.

Naw, Deane. Talpdx is simply mouthing scare america's talking points.

And all you do Herb is use LimBLAH, Insannity and FAUXNews talking points that America DOESN'T want to listen to anymore. Extreme RADICAL RIGHT is dying a horrible death. Your only going to get sucked in deeper. Once YOU reach the middle your doomed!

There is also a station in Linton. They sell K1 Kerosene as well.

Linton?
Where is that???

"talking points that America DOESN'T want to listen to anymore."

So Trixter, you're now speaking for all of America. That's quite an elevation in status for someone like you.

On HWY 30, on the way toward St. Helens.

I think it's about 15 minutes out from downtown PDX.

Used to get the K1 there regularly. They've a biodiesel pump. Almost always saw somebody with a Jetta filling up for the week!

As a long time diesel user . . . I'm a bit, ahem, skeptical, of putting biodiesel in my tanks when reliability is a major priority with me (I live out in the bookdocks so its a long walk if contaminated or gummed up biodiesel gunks up the works, especially, the injector pump. That said, buying from a reputable source probably will be trouble free. Still, even contaminated diesel fuel, and or water in the fuel can really mess things up. I'm not sure the risk factor is worth it unless Exxon puts their name on it to stand behind it.

At any rate, I can't do it because the rubber parts in this early 80's era vehicle aren't up to the job.

So Trixter, you're now speaking for all of America. That's quite an elevation in status for someone like you.

Thanks! Coming from an inbred NabrASSkan that's nice!

Well, YOU spoke for America in 2004 and look where it got us. So..... your status is worse. That's gotta suck.

In the 1990's, the only thing you'd hear about was the power of right wing radio. Nearly every right wing personality wanted to fill in for Rush Limbaugh or wanted their own show. But like most things, the market has leveled out.

Today, the general public seems much more discerning about what these right wing hosts have to say -- and take them much less seriously. But when you see the conservative talking points plastered on this board, you know the right wing talk radio machine, coupled with other right wing media, is still churning out their message. This election cycle, they're working overtime because their cause is in such dire straits.