Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

Page 2 of 7  
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:


Just waiting for you to address it, homo.
--
Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)'s words of
wisdom, love, and respect (spelling and grammatical errors left intact)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:

Just maintaining your low standards, semen slurper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Nov 2005 12:58:30 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"

Because they are too saddled with pension and health care obligations thanks to Organized Labor.

Don't forget the most useless gadgets of all: alarm systems...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

thanks to Organized Labor. <<
The nerve of those workers, wanting something so frivolous for all those years of sweat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The nerve of those workers, expecting current workers to support them in their retirement instead of saving their own money for the purpose and supporting themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
top posting corrected by snipping entire post...

Yes, and now after having helped the American worker to gain reasonable work hours and wages, they are now killing the American worker's jobs by driving companies out of business. Good thing we have unions to steal, I mean tax, our hard earned money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DTJ wrote:

It really depends how you define reasonable wages. In the cost of building a new car, approx 30% is for raw materials and 70% is labor costs and health insurnace alone adds about 1500 dollars to the price of each new car from GM. The bubble is bursting and time to pay the piper and get runaway costs under control.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The
OK.......if raw materials is 30% and Labor is 70%, I guess all other costs of doing business is free....right? What a loon...........
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"I guess all other costs of doing business is free....right? "
*lol* There would appear to be many costs of production not accounted for in that oversimplified formula!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With a complete analysis all costs are labor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Welll...
Raw materials and fuel is hardly all labor
Most of the costs are sales, marketing, profiteering
The prices can theoretically come down quite a lot
The price of oil is one of the cost most obvious to the ordinary customers
The use of alternative energy is obviously favored by the high costs of oil
For last thirty 30 years we have been getting warnings that the prices of oil would be going up steeply but most people have ignored it
Finally now the price of oil is noticable for most people
There have been alternatives available for a long time but they are still a long way off at replacing oil altogether but it seems that the higher costs now will speed things up
The old companies rely on inertia and slow changes
The old companies management have missed out on doing these neccessary changes and there is also a question of the authorities to help create the infrastructure for the new energies
The authorities should put a lot of taxes on oil and stimulate use of fuel cells
If they did that the changes will go even quicker and the need to invade more countries to get more oil would be less
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Invading countries for oil??!! You've been listening to the wrong people!!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shayne wrote:

Maybe, but I am more inclined to think Bush set the whole thing up because Saddam pissed him off. On top of that, there was no question that the US had the "shock and awe" to beat up on them.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In the name of the father the son invaded to get the whole of the oilghost
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Dec 2005 06:42:28 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I do believe that the Iraq invasion was to establish a military presence in an unstable region that seems bent upon the acquisition of nuclear arms more than it was to access oil.
Oil from Canada would have been much cheaper and much more plentiful than anything in Iraq and they haven't come North to free Canadians from our elected Dictatorship.
As for alternative energies? If they were truly viable don't you think Microsoft would buy them and get yet another Monopoly?
'nuff said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
joe schmoe said "Oil from Canada would have been much cheaper and much more plentiful than anything in Iraq..."
Joe, I'm not sure where you are getting your information or what you've been smoking, but at last check, the U.S. had 2.1% of proven Oil Reserves, Iraq had 10.9% and Canada had a measley 0.4%. Only Saudi Arabia, with 25.5% had more Oil Reserves than Iraq. Canada's oil supply could not even come close to meeting thehuge U.S. demand. It would be a waste of time for the U.S. to tap into Canada's supply. Iraq is "much more plentiful"! ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to be about 20 years out of date. >:)
Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery, which is too low for todays improving technology. SA is maturing as an oil source, Canada is just getting going. The difference is SA had very low production costs. With increasing prices much more oil is economically recoverable.
An example of this is the $140 million Nexen of Canada, with several other partners, just spent to drill the world's deepest commercial oil well. It's in the Gulf of Mexico, I assume in the USA part of the Gulf.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051221/R NEXEN21/TPBusiness/?query=nexen+oil+well
As for supplying the USA with imported energy, SA is third, Canada is first and that guy Bush and Pat hate is second. Canada currently supplies about 30%. So for a number of years very significant quantities of oil, natural gas and electricity have been flowing south to the USA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Spam Hater said "Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to be about 20 years out of date. >:) "
You may want to check out this link Spam Hater: http://www.azgs.az.gov/Winter2001.htm
Fortunately I bookmarked this site when I came across it a couple of years ago. The information is admittedly 5 years old (not 20!) but you will note therein that "Saudi Arabia contains an estimated 260 billion barrels of oil, or about one-fourth of proved global reserves (Radler, 2000). " while Canada had an estimated 4 billion barrels of oil or 0.4% of world reserves.
Spam Hater also said : " Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery,".
In this regard, you may wish to check this link Spam Hater:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
This report was posted in October of 2005 but please note that it has 2 very significant qualifications: 1. " BP p.l.c., BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2005, except United States.
2. " Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."
The 1st qualification appears to imply that the figures shwoing for the U.S. are incomplete. The 2nd qualification merely defines "Proved Reserves".
You will note that this report very clearly shows that Saudi Arabia has substantially more reserves than Canada, no matter whose figures you use.
The BP Statistical Review shows Canada with reserves of 16.8 Billion barrels VS. 262.7 Billion barrels for Saudia Arabia.
The Oil & Gas Journal shows Canada with reserves of 178.8 Billion barrels VS. 261.9 Billion barrels for Saudia Arabia. As explained in Footnote 3. : " Oil & Gas Journal's oil reserve estimate for Canada includes 4.3 billion barrels of conventional crude oil and condensate reserves and 174.5 billion barrels of oil sands reserves."
The World Oil Organization shows Canada with reserves of 4.7 Billion barrels Vs. 262.1 Billion barrels for Saudi Arabia.
This information would appear to be at odds with your information Spam Hater and particularly your claim that "Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery." Would you be so kind as to provide us with links that might shed some light on the accuracy of your figures. Thanks S.H.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Cool Jet wrote:

Uh-huh. Except that Saudi Arabia makes up their "reserves" as they go along, so there's no way of knowing how far off their assertions are from reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hate to disagree but http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html (July 2004)) "Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new retrieval methods. (By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.) "
Seeing as you won't believe that here's a few other links to read:
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/M.Sexton / http://www.answers.com/topic/tar-sands http://www.eenews.net/specialreports/tarsands/sr_tarsands3.htm http://www.hubbertpeak.com/tarsands /
The US needs ot be in Iraq to limit the proliferation of Nuclear technology from Pakistan. Oil is a minor added benefit/excuse.
If oil was the reason why not invade Venezuela? Easier, cheaper and closer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.