What did I assume... well, besides that you'd surely try to turn this discussion into some sort of 'Conservative vs. Liberal' thing?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Strother? You assumed that I was talking about some particular age-group, which I rebutted in my response. You spent at least half of your response to me in self-righteous indignation about it. And please, spare me the denials.And on, and on, and on.
Hey, man - you should really relax. The funny thing is that I'm actually on your side regarding this thread's original topic... but I guess that's not what you want, huh?
Indeed you were, and I never said differently. You were, however, off in the weeds as to the fundamentals of the issue and I called you on it. As usual, you don't appear to be inclined to substantially rebut what I said, but, also as usual, you appear to be poised to whine about how or why I said it. Are you sure it's me who has the chip on his shoulder?How do I explain this to someone who is so blindly determined to be disagreeable with me?
Careful, your ego is showing.Not once have I insinuated that the government do anything about gas prices.
And not once have I insinuated that you
did. Once again, it's that ego thing.Not that it matters, though. I'm sure you'll find some way to read what you'd like into what I have said.
Would you like some cheese with that whine? And we still have no substantive rebuttal in sight.Of course, there are plenty of other great reasons to consume less gas, but hey - any additional motivation is good and may be necessary to get Americans to stop and think for a second.
Nope, you're still stuck on that silly conservation track. I'm not going to belabor that because you haven't rebutted my original response. I certainly hope you don't think that simply repeating the assertion constitutes rebuttal.And if, as you say, there's truly nothing that can be done about gas prices (there, I said the p-word), a good, simple way for consumers to combat this trend is to buy more efficient cars.
Woo hoo! Finally, red meat.
Buying more efficient cars is a utopian stopgap. I'm not saying it has no worth, but it lacks practicality and it doesn't address the long-term issue. Not everyone can run out and drop $15,000 on a new Corolla. And remember, cars that get 30 MPG are still consuming petroleum products....and auto manufacturers would build more fuel-efficient cars.
Auto manufacturers will build more fuel efficient cars when there is a demand for such. Obviously, the demand doesn't exist, since the flagships of their production lines are the gas-guzzlers.Of course, there are plenty of other great reasons to consume less gas, but hey - any additional motivation is good and may be necessary to get Americans to stop and think for a second.
Conservation is not
the answer (for the third time). The answer is to find an alternative to buying oil from terrorists. If the entities who devise this alternative can do this without greatly disturbing the market, then all is wonderful. Far more likely is the case where the alternatives are identified and consumers are presented with the tradeoffs involved with adopting the alternative. On this point, I think Cal Thomas has a good idea. If one of the tradeoffs is avoiding buying oil from terrorists, it may present a substantially attractive incentive to even endure a little discomfort in the transition.
In fact, it can be argued that conservation is actually detrimental to getting us out of this dependency cycle. The first wakeup call came in the 1970s and conservation was adopted as the solution. Laws were passed and manufacturers were brow-beaten into producing more efficient cars. Following the disaster of price controls and the associated spike, prices fell again and complacency was restored. Again, in the 1980s, conservation was the answer to a spike in prices. Demand fell, prices fell, and we went back to sleep. Conservation only temporarily masks the issue. Of course, liberals/hippies/elites or whatever you want me to call them, seem addicted to continuously trying the same failed "solutions," time and time again....if we could fly to the moon decades ago, we could surely drive SUVs that get better than 35-40MPG.
And so it goes. This is a pointless observation. You're the one who introduced this whole, silly conservation angle. Cal Thomas didn't specify anything but a need to change our consumption habits, you assumed
he meant conservation.High horse? Hey, you brought up this MTV thing, Steve!
If you can't rebut, obfuscate, eh Strother? I brought it up and you got self-righteous about it. Colloquially that is known as "getting on one's high horse." Hopefully that clears up your confusion.I do realize why you brought it up, though: you'd prefer to think that those contributing to most of the problems in America are simply products of degenerate, Liberal programming of various types and from various mediums - an easy, typical target of those who frequently use stereotypes and wedges to make points.
So you're going to dive back into the refuge of whining, assuming, and projecting. Oh well, I actually got a small amount of substantial content from you. Things are looking up!But in the case of buying oil from those who fund terrorist regimes, even patriotic, well-intentioned, and otherwise good Americans are guilty as charged. That includes you, me, and most every MTV and/or FOX News viewer in the nation.
I think we've already established that. So what's your point in saying it again? You've identified the problem (with Cal Thomas' help), so what's the solution, or are you just looking to feel superior by inflicting guilt on people who probably aren't even paying attention?