Cerran

I refused to vote for Bush or for Kerry. I will not be a party to voting for one evil or the other. Bush has put our country into a death spiral due to deficit spending that may be impossible to recover from. He consistently says one thing and does another, courting christians when it suits him and doing the exact opposite when it doesn't. He's a politicians politician. I won't question his faith, but I do however question his actions. Since we are all sinners being christian does not qualify one person over another to be president. I want a man of principle in office and that GWB certainly isn't. If I could pick any politician to put in the presidency it would be Ron Paul.

Actually here in North Idaho I burn firewood. Usually it costs me about $60 a year for gas for the truck + wood permit to get 4 cords of wood. Saves a heck of a lot on my power/gas bill which would be around 120-150 instead of the $55 a month during the winter it is now if I was using gas/electric.

Iceland is Socialist Mike, they tax everything heavily. Not to mention they don't have the infrastructure for transporting fuel like the US has. They don't rely on oil for power generation as most of their power is geo-thermal. Gas was $5 in 1986 in many european countries as well. What noone here has mentioned is that oil from the middle east is still cheaper than oil produced at home, hence the reason the US has been so interested in oil over there. The energy cost to pump oil on US reserves is 10x the energy required to pull oil from the sands of the middle east. Transportation being extremely cheap (about $0.02 a gallon) from there to the US, it's easy to see why there is little incentive to quit buying middle eastern oil. And mopeds do not rule when you see what happens to someone who gets hit on one.

Average price of $22 in 1990 and average price in 2004 (finally found it) of $38.47 is almost double the price. By simple math it should at the very least be almost double the price. Account for inflation of 18% and bam you have $2.10 gas. $38.47 is 75% more than $22 1.75 x $1.00 gas in 1990 is $1.75 + 18% inflation = $2.065 per gallon. Now Add $0.45 - $0.70 for taxes and bam $2.50-$2.75 gas. Now account for higher emissions requirements, China, and Refinery Capacity. Gas is artifically held low in price by US government subsidies as well. Corprate welfare to oil companies is commonplace. Even without tax, gas should be well over $1.75 a gallon. Actual prices without government intervention put it at around $5 - $7 a gallon.

Where do you think we got our Rocket technology? Anyway it sounds like this is a travesty of justice if it's true. If she isn't comatose and just sedated there would be no reason not to have a feeding tube.

Funny, but not really the intent of the article. It just points out that privatized security would be both more effective and cheaper. Being from Canada I have a great book for you - It's called More Guns, Less Crime by John R Lott Jr. It's a excellent study of the effect of private gun ownership on crime.

I highly suggest you re-read it. I don't think you understood it.

Ummm Gerioke, did you even read the article? That's not what it's about.

By Dan Litwin, Free Market News Network April 8, 2005 Could smaller government undermine terrorists? According to BoydForbes Security, airline safety is no better than it was on 9/11, so it seems that the "big government" solutions have failed us. With this record of failure in mind, I would like to propose three reductions in government that really would improve airline security. Imagine: getting security for a savings: a.. Allow private programs for arming pilots. b.. Allow a truly free market in airline security. c.. Refuse to bail out private insurance companies with taxpayer money. Since we're no better off now than we were on 9/11 - even after the nationalization of airline security - let's examine each of my smaller government proposals. Allowing private programs for arming pilots It's illegal for airline pilots to arm themselves, and it's been that way since decades before 9/11. But since that day, many people have called for the arming of airline pilots. And why not? Even liquor stores have armed security. Unbelievably, the Bush administration started out saying that arming pilots was a bad idea. After much pressure, the government began a program to arm pilots if they submitted to training. Unfortunately, it is reported that pilot training has been disrupted by - go figure - the government's own brand new airline security agency. So we have a failed government program to arm pilots, and a rule against arming them privately. Suddenly, I see two candidates for smaller government. We could start by getting rid of the government bureaucracy that "trains" pilots, and whatever portion of the Federal Aviation Administration stops private efforts to arm them (use the money saved for programs that help people, like paying down the national debt, or reducing taxes). Then, simply allow each airline to train and arm its pilots as it sees fit. In the aftermath of 9/11, it seems like cheap insurance for airlines to arm their pilots. It might work to undermine terrorists - without costing the taxpayer a thing. Allowing a truly free market in airline security While allowing armed pilots is a start, some people believe that even more should be done, and say they want under-cover armed guards, too. Others want still more, such as guards in uniform. And again, why not? If we lived in a free country, each airline company could offer whatever they believed their customers wanted - not just armed pilots. Why not see which airline comes up with the closest security to what we each desire? Why shouldn't there be a chance that one of them will please you? For now, the government limits our options in airline security to its own "Air Marshals" - armed government agents that might be on your flight. And what are the actual chances that a Federal Air Marshal will be on your flight? The Washington Times reports "official" statistics of about 1 in 10 flights. Unfortunately, according to the same article, the marshals themselves say that's propaganda, suggesting that it's closer to 1 in every 25. So let's go with what we know really happened on 9/11: Four planes. Zero "Air Marshals". Those are not very good odds. Talk-radio's Michael Savage has vented that we could've protected ourselves better than the government protected us on 9/11. Amen. Allowing a free market in airline security would cost the taxpayer nothing, and the competition for our business would drive air security in a saner direction for a change. It would be an obvious improvement over our current unprotected status, and would definitely discourage terrorists. Refusing to bail out private insurance companies with taxpayer money After 9/11, it made sense for insurance companies to complain about the cost of life & liability claims: a.. Since the law allowed no armed security, airlines were sitting ducks for a terrorist attack. b.. Why should insurance companies alone pay for that? Indeed, they did not. According to the US Department of the Treasury, tax money was used to pay back to the insurance companies some of what should've been 100% insurance industry costs (a convenient web site was even set up to help insurers get their loot). If we allowed the free-market security outlined earlier, insurance companies would have no excuse for not paying all insurance claims. And government refusals to bail out private insurance companies would do more than save tax dollars. With all that liability on their minds, the insurance industry might take a greater interest in airline safety and the capture of terrorists. Insurers might lobby for the FBI or CIA to actually catch terrorist organizers. Or they might chase down terrorists themselves, to reduce their risk. Think of it: If you were Osama bin Laden, would you want those evil insurance companies chasing after you? Not that I have anything against the rich, but the answer here seems to be to let the rich insurance companies pay it all. Then we'll see corporate responsibility in action. Make the airlines and their insurers responsible for airline safety, give them the freedom to act, and you'll never have to bail out an insurance company again. And the results would further undermine terrorists. To summarize We can continue with "big government" policies and remain unprotected. Or we can try intelligent reductions in government that will help. Allowing private pilot training. Allowing freedom in airline security for innovation and choice. Never having a government bailout of a private insurance company. The really big problem is that our current politicians won't even talk about "smaller government" because they have no interest in reducing their own power. All they ever consider is more government. It's too bad they're so corrupt. Because when government doesn't work, as is the case here, we the people get no solution at all - and the terrorists win.

While I appauld elections, I'm not so sure we're seeing Iraq any freer at this point. The list of restrictions imposed by the U.S. military on Iraqi citizens is quite lengthy. The Iraqis must carry ID cards at all times, there

SJ, as far as the Oil price looking at the highest price of the year does no good really. Looking at an AVERAGE price however is a much better judge. Average price of $22 in 1990 and average price in 2004 (finally found it) of $38.47 is almost double the price. By simple math it should at the very least be almost double the price. Account for inflation of 18% and bam you have $2.10 gas. $38.47 is 75% more than $22 1.75 x $1.00 gas in 1990 is $1.75 + 18% inflation = $2.065 per gallon. Now account for higher emissions requirements, China, and Refinery Capacity. Where should gas really be? When it comes to hybrids, I've done a lot of reading of customer reviews, comments, and car magazine reviews on both the Honda and the Toyota designs. Couple that with the fact that the Toyota does get better mileage than the Civic Hybrid (60/51 city/highway vs 47/48), has a better powertrain warranty and when I drove it the Toyota just felt peppier and had more room in both the front and back seats. Being a Subaru Driver for the last 10 years I wasn't stuck on either but overall in my opinion the Prius was just a better deal.

Try an Air-Bake Cookie Sheet my experience with them has been very good.

Highest Oil Price in 1990 was $38.19 with an average price for the year of around $22.00. Compare that with the average price in 2004 to be well over $40.00. Gas should actually be at least double 1990 pricing. Now factor in Refinery Demand, Special gas Blend requirements due to regulations, and demand from China. That is why gas is expensive and why it's $1.00 per gallon more. BTW, Ford is licensing the Toyota Hybrid System for use in a couple upcoming hybrids and Toyota has consistently beat out Honda in both sales and performance reviews of their hybrids. Not to mention Toyota has been working on hybrid technology since 1991 in Japan and only recently brought it to the states. They are currently the only one with family size hybrids on the market. (The civic is just to small on interior room, I know I checked it out when I bought mine). As yes I know about the Accord Hybrid, but good luck finding one for at least two years, and gas mileage is less than stellar on it. Their production run is already sold out and there is a long waiting list. Since the Prius has been out for 4 years (in the US) now and has a production run of 160,000+ they are more available.

Toyota Prius. Paid about 22k for it (Before taxes ect). Has even better power than my wife's old Chevy Prism and gets more than twice the mileage. Best of all it will fit 3 kids no problem as long as they aren't in car seats still. It might still be doable with car seats but it would be a tight fit. We can fit in two car seats with no problem. Other thing that is nice is that it isn't a sub-compact like a lot of the other high mileage cars, it's actually a bit larger than our Subaru Impreza. I would Classify it as a small-mid size hatchback. What are you driving now?

That is one thing I love about my new car. 55 Highway and 60 town MPG makes so I fill my car once every two months. Reb, I'm all for driving what you choose but it makes little sense to whine if you buy a gas guzzling monster and then can't afford to drive it. I certainly hope your comment about seatbelts wasn't to discourage seatbelt use. I have a friend who wouldn't be alive today had he not been wearing his seatbelt. 90% of the time seatbelts do save lives. However I do object to seatbelt laws, which I think are a violation of personal liberty.

So much for Bush's "Democracy". Sounds like it has become he claims to hate.

I know lots of Christians who use it simply as an excercise routine and avoid all the meditation stuff.

Reb: I think you'll actually find that most of the smaller cars on the market outperform all three of these in crash tests. Remember most injuries don't occur directly from the other car on older ones but from pieces of your own car. Especially the steering column on older cars. Not to mention side curtain air bags, crumple zones and anti-lock brakes on newer vehicles. If it was a surburban and a metro, yeah but that would be like a semi and a suburban and there is always that risk. I have a 1977 Jeep Wagoneer with a 401 V8 as well but it never gets driven except to the dump and to get firewood.

There are several factors that will prevent a 1970's similar recovery: Refinery Capacity - Currently at the maximum and no refineries are being built in the US. China - Already doubling consumption of oil every couple years. Market prices are going to continue to go up due to increased demand for oil. US Currency Dominance - Our currency has devalued over 35% since the 70's and soon will no longer be the world exchange basis. I predict the Euro will become the new exchange basis. Japan is already a dominant car maker in the US, and with good reason. And last but not least, poor US policy in the middle East could turn against us and stop oil imports to the US. Even demand from China could do this if the marketplace dictates it. As for Jesus coming back, I personally don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

I welcome the high gas prices, I think it will force a shift in the auto market that has stagnated because the US government has artifically held down gas prices for so long. People will drive less and start switching to cars that use less gas. Gone will be the day of the single person driving the surburban to work or to the grocery store.

I don't think we should have a minimum wage but that is a completely different topic. However M55 by your rationale why should minimum wage even exist? At some point the free market will determine what someone will and won't work for, especially when it comes to making a living. Let the free market drive wages. As for welfare, while I disagree totally with state welfare, it should be obvious that state welfare should be ONLY for full US citizens. If you are not a citizen you should not be entitled to benefits. Other One, I agree completely. If you come to the U.S. you should speak english period. If you can't learn the language you don't deserve to live here. I wouldn't move to another country without an expectation of learning their language.

I wouldn't say relocate with ease. There is a lengthy process to set up a business in Canada I'm sure. As for professional, I was referring to people with degrees, college educated people. That is a far cry difference from the type pf people crossing the US border. Remember I'm not saying Mexicans shouldn't be allowed to immigrate, but we need a better system in place to protect our border from undesirables. I have no problem with the worker coming across looking for work and a better life.

I doubt it, most americans working in Canada are professionals. I'll have to dig up the article I read a while back , but I read somewhere that well over 60% of US Workers working in Canada are professionals.

I'd have to agree with M55 and SuperJew, there is no reason to keep mexicans from coming to work here provided they are run through a standard background check. I do think however we should more tightly control the borders. Make it easier for workers to enter the country legally and tighten up border security would work.

I pulled this from another thread and was wondering how this relates to free will. I would say we have the right to live a sinful lifestyle, but that is certainly not what God wants from us. If we look at ourselves as truly having free will then sin is our own personal choice. I don't believe we have an obligation to live sin free but we do have a responsibility to try if we want to live according to God's wishes.