course all the arguing dont put food on my table or get people to bring me there broke arse computers or tvs...or get me a real job...like what i had in D.C.....

Ooh - ours here. They lied like you wouldn't believe. Or you probably would.
They lied then, they carried on lying, and now they have gone completely mental

As the Iranian president said: Prices are based on pure greed and speculation. If someone from Israel farts, the price goes up. Someone in the Revolutionary Guard hickups the price goes up. consumption in the US drops, prices go up. That and the drop in the value of US currency on the world market.

Oh and as to the speed thing: Every car has it's most efficient RPM point, which is the entire point behind hybrid vehicles. The usual break point in efficiency is 3500 RPM. Most engines go into "aggressive" mode after that ( well mine does) so as long as I keep the engine below that speed, I'm good for my car's optimal fuel consumption rate. You'll save more gas not TRYING to pass people or doing anything that involves unnecessary acceleration which consumes more gas than just about anything else short of starting a cold engine.

And Obama is an opportunist. Yes, the black guy on the site said it.

Quoted for truth! Anything I say past this point is just belaboring what I've already said. But you know how a picture is worth a thousand words?



Enough said IMO.

ahhh, the infamous rummy picture.

Well, I had a reply, but Opera ate it. And that made me think better of the utility of carrying on a point-by-point reply to someone who knows he won't convince me.

So, summing up the point-by-point bit a lot more briefly: I'd argue two things:
First, the two-class situation arises because there's a market for a resource controlled by the government; I blame the government control, not the market.
Second, even if you blame the market, our share being disproportionate does not justify calling us the root cause when it's only 24%; especially considering that the remainder of the market is constituted of many countries, not a small cabal (which we might have a measure of control over).

And a bit of explanation of my position overall:
Domestically: libertarian... big-time libertarian.
Internationally: borderline "imperialist".

I see a significant difference between these, because domestic work involves crafting a government just powerful enough to coerce "wrongdoers" (defined appropriately in terms of violating others' rights; "users of coercion" is as close as you can cram in one phrase), but weak enough it can't coerce anyone else, and that it can be corrected and/or destroyed if it tries.

I don't believe establishing an international government of that sort is possible; that leaves a dog-eat-dog world where we have to be the big dog, join a pack, or both. Of course, so long as we can get along well with certain other nations, free trade, free motion across borders, etc., should be as free as possible, consistent with our national interests (but not private economic interests!). I could (did, before Opera dined on my post) elaborate, but I think that's clear enough for my point.

That's where I stand, and I expect I differ rather seriously with you on international and intergovernmental issues; but I hope you can see it's not because I buy into much propaganda. My position on Iraq is the result of a different assessment of some of the alleged propaganda, and an overall difference (I expect) on foreign policy, but not from believing that any politician anywhere was honest; I'd never have gotten the slightest bit of libertarianism that way.

Continuing to put "only" before 24% severely belittles the gravity of that number.

The rest I've already covered as well as intend to, so we'll have to agree to profoundly disagree. Ironic, because I'm damn near Libertarian myself, and it's been my experience that Libertarians STRONGLY oppose nation-building (a la Iraq).

I agree with texrat. It seems very contradictory to be libertarian and imperialist (even borderline) since being imperialist necessarily negates the basis of libertarianism.

To clarify, I'm this side of the border; but close enough that some people would classify me there. Border-line is probably the wrong term...

Even so, I see no contradiction in my position as stated in more detail above; there would be a contradiction in real imperialism, so I'd have thought that made my non-imperialist (but close in some ways) meaning clear.

I'm inclined to the whack-em-and-get-out school, not the nation-building school, though I've stated that I think both those are sane (not correct!) given sufficient reason to do anything; what we've done is not proper nation-building either, which I am inclined to attribute to error rather than malice.