|
Boycott Exxon & Mobil
All that profit goes into Bush's pocket.
There should be a shutdown of transport. The gas prices are ridiculous especially when you pay $2.09 here and can go to a city 100 miles away and pay 0.50 cents less a gallon. They say it cost more to transport the gas here, but the same truck delivers at that city 100 miles south and another city 50 miles north where both cities north and south are the same price. Doesnt make sense. Price Gouging is what it is. On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:55:58 +0100 (CET), Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last quarter! You can't boycott all gasoline...but you CAN boycott the largest company! Don't buy gas, don't buy snacks, don't buy coffe from these folks. Let 'em know you're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! And for any of you truck drivers, if you want to take part in a transport shut down like they did in England a few years back, you have my blessing. Just give us a little warning before hand so we can all stock up on groceries. *Why would Bush allow these high gas prices to ruin his economic recovery? Cuz he's gonna take one "for the team". He's going to take a dive for the Republicans so the Clinton's won't be able to take the White House in four years...... |
To give you a lough for the day, and maybe you fell better about your fuel
prices: Gernerally, fuel prices over here in EU are around 1,00 Euro PER LITER (quarter gallon), so don't complain about high prices. Though almost 50% driving diesel (abt 0,80 euros /liter) powered vehicles (exluding commercial trucks), we also have this price differences within short range. Szenario: Driving from Venice/IT to Prague/Tschechnia (400 miles) fill up in venice for 1.09, next stop near Vienna/Austria you pay only 0.65 and in prague you can get hte liter of diesel for slightly over 50 cents. They (Oil Companies) use the same excuse for the different prices as they do over there at your side. BTW, ESSO and MOBILE also are the most expensive brands over here. Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here. Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70. And their performance is not less the gas engines. So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE. You know, you are filling up CHEAP. Greetings from Austria 73 de OE8SOQ Helmut "Old School" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... | All that profit goes into Bush's pocket. | | There should be a shutdown of transport. The gas prices are ridiculous | especially when you pay $2.09 here and can go to a city 100 miles away | and pay 0.50 cents less a gallon. They say it cost more to transport | the gas here, but the same truck delivers at that city 100 miles south | and another city 50 miles north where both cities north and south are | the same price. Doesnt make sense. Price Gouging is what it is. | | On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:55:58 +0100 (CET), Anonymous via the | Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: | | Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last quarter! You can't | boycott all gasoline...but you CAN boycott the largest company! Don't buy | gas, don't buy snacks, don't buy coffe from these folks. Let 'em know | you're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! | | And for any of you truck drivers, if you want to take part in a transport | shut down like they did in England a few years back, you have my blessing. | Just give us a little warning before hand so we can all stock up on groceries. | | *Why would Bush allow these high gas prices to ruin his economic recovery? | Cuz he's gonna take one "for the team". He's going to take a dive for the | Republicans so the Clinton's won't be able to take the White House in four | years...... | |
"Helmut" wrote in message ...
To give you a lough for the day, and maybe you fell better about your fuel prices: Gernerally, fuel prices over here in EU are around 1,00 Euro PER LITER (quarter gallon), so don't complain about high prices. Your high prices are because of punitive taxation by your elected governments. Though almost 50% driving diesel (abt 0,80 euros /liter) powered vehicles (exluding commercial trucks), we also have this price differences within short range. Szenario: Driving from Venice/IT to Prague/Tschechnia (400 miles) fill up in venice for 1.09, next stop near Vienna/Austria you pay only 0.65 and in prague you can get hte liter of diesel for slightly over 50 cents. They (Oil Companies) use the same excuse for the different prices as they do over there at your side. BTW, ESSO and MOBILE also are the most expensive brands over here. In central Ohio, the price of gas fluctuates +/- .25 every week. My dad goes to Florida each winter, the price of gas fluctuates there +/- 0. Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here. They only dump the showboats on the USA because Bill Clinton/Algore forgot to renew the EPA Fleet Miles Per Gallon requirements. They were [expletive deleted] idiots. So much for "Earth in the Balance!" Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70. And their performance is not less the gas engines. So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE. You know, you are filling up CHEAP. We pay for our fuel in different ways. I don't see too many EU soldiers trying to keep the flow of oil moving out of the mideast. Greetings from Austria 73 de OE8SOQ Helmut bb |
Yep, but don't forget that OPEC just cut production. They tie the price of
oil to US dollars - and the US dollar is falling against most currencies, so they want more dollars so they aren't loosing purchasing power. Ever wonder why the US dollar is falling? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" wrote in message news:03ca0dded9176f960cee121922eef6c1@cypherpunks. to... Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last quarter! You can't boycott all gasoline...but you CAN boycott the largest company! Don't buy gas, don't buy snacks, don't buy coffe from these folks. Let 'em know you're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! And for any of you truck drivers, if you want to take part in a transport shut down like they did in England a few years back, you have my blessing. Just give us a little warning before hand so we can all stock up on groceries. *Why would Bush allow these high gas prices to ruin his economic recovery? Cuz he's gonna take one "for the team". He's going to take a dive for the Republicans so the Clinton's won't be able to take the White House in four years...... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.595 / Virus Database: 378 - Release Date: 2/25/04 |
|
|
In article , "Helmut"
writes: To give you a lough for the day, and maybe you fell better about your fuel prices: Gernerally, fuel prices over here in EU are around 1,00 Euro PER LITER (quarter gallon), so don't complain about high prices. European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes. The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit (Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses. Though almost 50% driving diesel (abt 0,80 euros /liter) powered vehicles (exluding commercial trucks), we also have this price differences within short range. Szenario: Driving from Venice/IT to Prague/Tschechnia (400 miles) fill up in venice for 1.09, next stop near Vienna/Austria you pay only 0.65 and in prague you can get hte liter of diesel for slightly over 50 cents. That's only $2.00 per gallon! I've seen diesel prices in excess of $2 gallon here at times. They (Oil Companies) use the same excuse for the different prices as they do over there at your side. BTW, ESSO and MOBILE also are the most expensive brands over here. Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here. Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70. Only in small cars. And their performance is not less the gas engines. Agreed. But the first-cost is greater. And at US fuel prices, the difference may not be worth it. Suppose the diesel car gets 60 MPG and the equivalent gasoline car gets 40 MPG. And suppose the car is driven 12,000 miles per year. That's 300 gallons of gasoline vs. 200 gallons of diesel. If both fuels cost about the same (as they usually do in the USA), the saving is only $150-200 per year. Compared to the price of the car, insurance, repairs, maintenance, etc, that's not much saving. So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE. You know, you are filling up CHEAP. Back in 1980 I bought a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over its 17 year lifetime, I got 43 mpg combined (I kept very accurate records). An equivalent gasoline Rabbit would have probably done about 30 mpg. But the diesel engine cost $900 more back then. Considering all factors, I didn't save very much driving an oil burner. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes. The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit (Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses. Jim: Don't look now, but ALL public transit in the United States exists mainly due to state and federal subsidies which provide virtually all of the funding needed for the procurement of vehicles, facilities, communications systems, and most of the operating costs. Not in the case of SEPTA and Amtrak! While there is some support, it is nowhere near the level of support in Europe. More importantly, the support is not long-term. If public transit had to "pay it's own way," I, for one public transit employee, would not have a job. I drive Paratransit in Kent County, Delaware, and the cash I turn in from my fare box at the end of the day would not pay for an hour's worth of my wages. That's because of the location and route. Try a major metro area like Philly at rush hour. At best, a few of our more heavily utilized fixed-routes in Wilmington might just possibly pay for the fuel consumed and other routine expenses, but wouldn't even come close to covering all of the essential overhead. The same is true of other forms of transportation. Airlines don't build airports, nor air traffic control systems, nor the weather and comm systems needed to run them. Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here. Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70. Only in small cars. True, and that's part of the reason why diesel engines are not more common in U.S. passenger vehicles. Partly by necessity but mainly by preference, us Americans prefer to drive massive, heavy, inherently inefficient vehicles such as all those 4-wheel drive SUV's being driven exclusively on perfectly clear dry roads and highways. I agree 100%. If only we were a lot smarter in our choices of vehicles, we could probably benefit from the many advantages of diesel engines, which can now be made as "clean" as gasoline engines. Been that way for years. My 19080 Rabbit had to meet the same emission specs as gasoline engines. And their performance is not less the gas engines. Agreed. But the first-cost is greater. And at US fuel prices, the difference may not be worth it. It would be if we started viewing our vehicles as the mere transportation appliances they should be, and not as outward extensions of our personalities or demonstrations of our wealth. Something I've said for years. Suppose the diesel car gets 60 MPG and the equivalent gasoline car gets 40 MPG. And suppose the car is driven 12,000 miles per year. That's 300 gallons of gasoline vs. 200 gallons of diesel. If both fuels cost about the same (as they usually do in the USA), the saving is only $150-200 per year. Compared to the price of the car, insurance, repairs, maintenance, etc, that's not much saving. Now consider a driver who must drive anywhere from 25 to 30,000 miles a year, for business purposes or just a particularly long commute from a rural area to the city where he/she works. Now the fuel cost savings of a diesel start to look very attractive indeed! Maybe. Let's see - at 30K miles per year, the diesel burns 500 gallons per year and the gasoline car 750 gallons. That's a sayings of 250 gallons per year. At $2 per gallon, it's still not much of savings compared to other costs. More important, the person who drives that much (such as a certain absent rrapper who commutes ~120 miles per day) often wants a bigger car for the perceived comfort and safety. (Note the word "perceived"). So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE. You know, you are filling up CHEAP. Back in 1980 I bought a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over its 17 year lifetime, I got 43 mpg combined (I kept very accurate records). An equivalent gasoline Rabbit would have probably done about 30 mpg. But the diesel engine cost $900 more back then. Considering all factors, I didn't save very much driving an oil burner. If a high mileage diesel-engine version of the Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla (my automobile!) Toyota is the world leader in hybrid car technology. The Prius is an example. and every other econo-box in the same class as the VW Rabbit were available, then the additional cost wouldn't be so great as to skim the potential savings off from the top. Not exactly. The manufacturers all use different engines. The cost differential reflectes the added manufacturing cost of the diesel. Modern diesel engines are clean, efficient, and have more than adequate power for vehicles that would adequately serve over 80% of the American travelling public. But you don't drive one! They are no more difficult to maintain than a gasoline engine of equivalent power, and generally last longer because they are, out of necessity, built stronger. They are also less tolerant of poor maintenance, bad fuel, and sloppy driving. They also have a bad reputation in some circles due to poorly designed engines such as were used in some GM cars 20+ years ago. There's gotta be some reason why we aren't using more diesel power here in the U.S., but I am at a loss to explain it. A combination of factors, but they fall into two categories: "Image" (diesels are not perceived to be "cool" in the USA) and cost (gas is so cheap and plentiful that most people don't worry about it much.) 73 de Larry, K3LT 2003 Toyota Corolla LE (Automatic) Averaging 30 MPG City, 41 MPG Highway My old car got ~41 city, ~52 highway. With late-1970s technology in a car weighing over 2200 pounds. The modern TDI VWs do even better. Then there's the other end of the spectrum: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes. The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit (Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses. Jim: Don't look now, but ALL public transit in the United States exists mainly due to state and federal subsidies which provide virtually all of the funding needed for the procurement of vehicles, facilities, communications systems, and most of the operating costs. If public transit had to "pay it's own way," I, for one public transit employee, would not have a job. I drive Paratransit in Kent County, Delaware, and the cash I turn in from my fare box at the end of the day would not pay for an hour's worth of my wages. At best, a few of our more heavily utilized fixed-routes in Wilmington might just possibly pay for the fuel consumed and other routine expenses, but wouldn't even come close to covering all of the essential overhead. Here is my take on Public Transit, Larry: Is public transit a good thing, or a waste of taxpayers money? Is the subsidy of public transit a liberal plot to undermine America's core values, or what? (hehe, kind of melodramatic there!) The use of public transit, even when subsidized by government, is a LOT less than the amount of money that would be taken up by the construction and maintenance of new highways that would be needed if everyone had to use their own automobiles to get to work. These new roads would eliminate valuable real estate from productivity, as well as the space needed for parking the said automobiles. And guess where the money for these new roads comes from? Taxes. Sometimes, ya just have to pay *something*, I think. Thats why Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and all the other non-US Car manufacturers sell their "premium edition" multi cylinder high consumption vehicles to the States. They never could sell lots of them over here. Modern Diesel engines have a mileage per gallon of 60 or 70. Only in small cars. True, and that's part of the reason why diesel engines are not more common in U.S. passenger vehicles. Partly by necessity but mainly by preference, us Americans prefer to drive massive, heavy, inherently inefficient vehicles such as all those 4-wheel drive SUV's being driven exclusively on perfectly clear dry roads and highways. If only we were a lot smarter in our choices of vehicles, we could probably benefit from the many advantages of diesel engines, which can now be made as "clean" as gasoline engines. And their performance is not less the gas engines. Agreed. But the first-cost is greater. And at US fuel prices, the difference may not be worth it. It would be if we started viewing our vehicles as the mere transportation appliances they should be, and not as outward extensions of our personalities or demonstrations of our wealth. Suppose the diesel car gets 60 MPG and the equivalent gasoline car gets 40 MPG. And suppose the car is driven 12,000 miles per year. That's 300 gallons of gasoline vs. 200 gallons of diesel. If both fuels cost about the same (as they usually do in the USA), the saving is only $150-200 per year. Compared to the price of the car, insurance, repairs, maintenance, etc, that's not much saving. Now consider a driver who must drive anywhere from 25 to 30,000 miles a year, for business purposes or just a particularly long commute from a rural area to the city where he/she works. Now the fuel cost savings of a diesel start to look very attractive indeed! So, now you can rest back at your next refueling stop, let the gas go into your tank, and when at the cashier, just SMILE. You know, you are filling up CHEAP. Back in 1980 I bought a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over its 17 year lifetime, I got 43 mpg combined (I kept very accurate records). An equivalent gasoline Rabbit would have probably done about 30 mpg. But the diesel engine cost $900 more back then. Considering all factors, I didn't save very much driving an oil burner. If a high mileage diesel-engine version of the Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla (my automobile!) and every other econo-box in the same class as the VW Rabbit were available, then the additional cost wouldn't be so great as to skim the potential savings off from the top. Modern diesel engines are clean, efficient, and have more than adequate power for vehicles that would adequately serve over 80% of the American travelling public. They are no more difficult to maintain than a gasoline engine of equivalent power, and generally last longer because they are, out of necessity, built stronger. There's gotta be some reason why we aren't using more diesel power here in the U.S., but I am at a loss to explain it. There is a particulate emission problem for diesel engines, but I suspect that can be solved. Probably the biggest problem in the past was the lack of available fuel where we needed it. I don't think that is a problem anymore, and I suspect that if fuel prices continue edging upward, diesel may make a comeback. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: My old car got ~41 city, ~52 highway. With late-1970s technology in a car weighing over 2200 pounds. The modern TDI VWs do even better. Then there's the other end of the spectrum: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ How does that apply to amateur RADIO policy? Try the automotive newsgroups on the first floor. They are chock full of mileage gas brags. LHA / WMD |
|
|
|
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Larry Roll K3LT wrote: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: European fuel prices are that high in large part because of very high taxes. The tax revenues are used for the roads and also to subsidize bus, transit (Metro) and rail service. Unlike the USA, public transportation in Europe is not expected to make money or even to meet its own expenses. Jim: Don't look now, but ALL public transit in the United States exists mainly due to state and federal subsidies which provide virtually all of the funding needed for the procurement of vehicles, facilities, communications systems, and most of the operating costs. If public transit had to "pay it's own way," I, for one public transit employee, would not have a job. I drive Paratransit in Kent County, Delaware, and the cash I turn in from my fare box at the end of the day would not pay for an hour's worth of my wages. At best, a few of our more heavily utilized fixed-routes in Wilmington might just possibly pay for the fuel consumed and other routine expenses, but wouldn't even come close to covering all of the essential overhead. Here is my take on Public Transit, Larry: Is public transit a good thing, or a waste of taxpayers money? Is the subsidy of public transit a liberal plot to undermine America's core values, or what? (hehe, kind of melodramatic there!) But Mike, w/o public transit, Larry would have a hard time telling us his "Favorite Black on the Bus..." stories. |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: Oh, and I forgot to mention -- diesel engines don't have any ignition system, therefore, no ignition system noise. This makes it much easier to operate mobile HF from an automobile with a diesel engine! That's generally true, Larry. But many modern diesel engines use electronically-controlled fuel injectors. The control circuits to these injectors can be a source of electrical noise. But said noise can be fixed. So can the tires. Not so sure they can be fixed. Another advantage we didn't mention was that diesel cars generally have higher-capacity electrical systems, mostly because of the starting requirements. My Rabbit's diesel engine was rated at 48 hp - and had a 2 hp starter, 63 AH Series 24 battery and 55 amp alternator. I could jump-start almost anything with a 12 volt electrical system. You should have helped jump start the W0EX mobile emergency station (if any) so that he could accept Hans' invitation to a CW QSO in two consecutive years. |
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Here is my take on Public Transit, Larry: Is public transit a good thing, or a waste of taxpayers money? Is the subsidy of public transit a liberal plot to undermine America's core values, or what? (hehe, kind of melodramatic there!) The use of public transit, even when subsidized by government, is a LOT less than the amount of money that would be taken up by the construction and maintenance of new highways that would be needed if everyone had to use their own automobiles to get to work. These new roads would eliminate valuable real estate from productivity, as well as the space needed for parking the said automobiles. And guess where the money for these new roads comes from? Taxes. Sometimes, ya just have to pay *something*, I think. All valid points, Mike. Here are some mo - increased pollution - decreased transportation opportunities for those unable to drive for any reason (the disabled, poor, underage, etc.) - increased losses (life, injury, property damage) due to increased road/highway traffic (the most dangerous form of transportation generally used). There is a particulate emission problem for diesel engines, but I suspect that can be solved. Fixable with improved technology. The overall pollution impact of a diesel is *less* than that of a gasoline engine of equivalent horsepower-hours. Probably the biggest problem in the past was the lack of available fuel where we needed it. I don't think that is a problem anymore, and I suspect that if fuel prices continue edging upward, diesel may make a comeback. I drove a diesel Rabbit from February 1980 to February 1997 and never, ever had a problem finding fuel. The car had only a 10 gallon tank, and I rarely let it get down below 1/4 full. That meant about 400 highway/300 city miles between fillups, which cost $10 or so. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com