willstrickland

Offwhite, your point is well taken to an extent. When oil prices are high it is because: 1. Demand is high, in which case shipping costs go up because the companies must lease tankers at on the spot market who's rates rise along with demand. or 2. Supply is decreased, in which case the companies variable costs are higher per production unit (working more/harder to obtain same amount). In either case, the profit margin is not rising linearly with the price of oil. It's not quite the same situation as your example.

Here's what's funny to me: I couldn't drag my ass to the top of that hill from either side. But why would you peeps be dissin' on AlpineK, who is obviously not a trust-fund rich kid or sponsored for some bullshit reason? He made a dirtbag trip happen, and made it pretty high on a still unclimbed route on the mountain. How many of you would even consider attempting a new route on an 8000m peak? The committment level alone is more than 95% of you could muster (myself included). I know I probably couldn't summit the thing because I understand my aerobic capacity. But I also know I wouldn't be freaked out about jugging and/or rapping fixed lines on a 60deg ice face. The simple fact is, this lady is a reasonably attractive endurance athlete who played her ass for a shot at glory. She won. Congratulations for fierce aerobic capacity and playing the PR game. She still is nothing more than a glorified high altitude hiker. Nothing wrong with that, but to say she "climbed everest" is an insult to people like A.K. who actually climbed on the mountain in good style. The whole commericialized, peak bagger, pop-culture, latest craze, ego-ridden aspect of her trip and personality is in opposition to everything that climbing culture means to me. Maybe you think differently, and if so, hopefully you'll be hang dogging with your shirt off on some overgraded bolted choss pile spraying to your buddies and grunting loudly everytime a chick enters earshot while I'm off climbing something in the backcountry listening to the wind. One thing is for certain, you won't be roping up with me.

What a load of shit. Two fundamentals here: Supply. Demand. Govt price controls are not a fix. Tell the companies they have to lose money on the product to sell it here and guess what? You went from expensive oil to NO OIL AT ALL. Congratulations asshat democrat politicians, with no oil or even a severly restricted supply we have an economic depression that makes the 1930's look like high times indeed. The problems here are two: 1. Price manipulation by OPEC 2. Political instability in Venezuela This tactic in the orgininal post above would work...but not by "sticking it to the oil companies". It would simply decrease demand. We could all carpool, take the bus, bike, etc and achieve the same result...until the prices dropped and everyone started driving again. Do you even know what the profit margins of the large oil companies are? I'm talking ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco. Exxon has a profit margin around 7.9% and ChevTex around 6.5%. What does Starbucks have...ab out 7%.

Does the "cc" in cc.com now stand for Clear Channel?

Take a look at Alpinist No 5, Pg 31.

Send it to me...I'll make sure it goes to good booze, I mean good use.

You trollin' for a bitch-slap?

This today from a co-worker (I have edited out some specifics for privacy sake):

Spray Moved Thread

To be a little more accurate, alot of the focus outside of general security and stability, preparing for a new govt, training police, etc has been on building or rebuilding infrastructure. There are several civilian co-workers of mine (Army Corp of Enigneers) who are in Iraq right now working on large infrastructure projects. Oil production is only one part of that infrastructure and from my understanding the oil infra was largely intact. Power, water, and communications are vital and ongoing projects.

I think you have already been visiting the drug czar if you think I should be in power.

Just Note, the $25B is for the rest of this year. Iraq/Afganistan expenditures for FY'05 are estimated to be between $65-$79B Conservatives' dissent puts pressure on Bush By Steven Thomma and James Kuhnhenn Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON — President Bush is facing sharp dissent from his conservative base that could force him to change course on the war in Iraq and other issues or risk losing critical support for his re-election campaign. The complaints are rising from the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party — including such influential voices as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and columnist George Will, who are challenging the "neo-conservative" doctrine that the United States can remake the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein and nurturing a democracy. "It would be foolish, not to say ruinously arrogant, to believe that we can determine the future of Iraq," Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said yesterday. Bush still has solid support from his party's rank and file — 95 percent of conservative Republicans plan to vote for him or are leaning toward doing so, according to a Pew Research Center survey. But if dissatisfaction over the war and other hot-button issues — such as soaring federal-budget deficits, an expensive new Medicare drug entitlement and a proposed near-amnesty for illegal immigrants — spreads through conservative ranks, it could force Bush to change course or face the prospect that some conservatives might sit out what's expected to be another close election. Bush tried to rally his base last night, addressing the 40th annual meeting of the American Conservative Union in Washington. He stuck to his Middle East vision of a new democracy in Iraq. Allies "know a free Iraq will be an agent for change in a part of the world that so desperately needs freedom and peace," Bush said. "The Iraqi people want to run themselves. And so, on June 30th a sovereign Iraqi interim government will take office, and there will be tough times ahead. These are not easy tasks. They are essential tasks, and America will finish what we have begun and we will win this essential victory in a war on terror." Days earlier, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested Bush's vision of America's role may be unrealistic and unwise. "We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by force if necessary," Roberts said in a speech. Hyde and Roberts aren't abandoning their support for the war to topple Saddam. Both voted for the congressional resolution last year authorizing military action in Iraq, citing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But no evidence has been found that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear-weapons program, and Hyde and Roberts now insist that the administration's first priority should be to stabilize the country so Iraqis can form a government. "There's a growing split between conservatives and neo-cons," said a senior House Republican aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. "From day one, traditional conservatives did not believe that the United States could deliver democracy to Iraq." Unlike traditional conservatives, who are wary of big government, budget deficits and foreign entanglements, so-called "neo-conservatives" believe that America has an opportunity and even a duty to export its concept of liberty. Some in the administration thought Iraq would be Exhibit A of how readily Western democracy would take root. Will, who is influential with traditional conservatives, recently scorned such neo-conservative thinking. Conservatism, he wrote, means seeing the world as it is, not as it should be. "Traditional conservatism," Will wrote. "Nothing 'neo' about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix." In a follow-up column, Will voiced sharp criticism of the Bush White House for refusing to consider changing course in Iraq. "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts," Will wrote. "Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in the face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice." Bush faces other criticism from traditional conservatives, notably over budget policies. David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, noted in a recent letter to members that federal spending has increased by $300 billion since Bush took office, including $96 billion for domestic social-welfare programs. By comparison, Keene said, spending increased by only $51 billion during President Clinton's first six years

Raytheon is a scumbag company. Nevertheless, Raytheon had nothing to do with the Columbine tragedy. Moore is a fat ass mouthpiece of a marginal group of extremist thinkers. Limbaugh is a fat ass mouthpiece of a marginal group of extremist thinkers. No difference IMO other than Rush being a drug addict and a little less intelligent. Both of 'em deserve a good 'ol country ass whuppin.

Yeah, I actually have met that guy too, Chris something. He lives down in the Mat-Su valley a little north of Anchorage. Funny dude, had some crazy pictures of a grizzly he had to kill once.

Layton's mixin' it up over there. Nice one Mike You shoulda plugged the Trale Parck Pass over there.

Go read the thread over there. Quite a bit of objection. Gettin' heated over there. They might have to hold hands and sing songs to bond or something if it gets any meaner.

Two reasons for that mainly: 1. The handle would have to be fatter or the walls thinner to use a double stacking magazine (they aren't clips, no matter how many action movies say otherwise). 2. There were feed problems in some of the DS magazines. The Glocks with DS mags had elevated the capacity of some of their handguns to 18 rounds with one in the chamber. Clinton signed a law limiting them to 11? I belive. You can still get the pre-ban ones if you're willing to pay through the nose because they actually have to have been made before the ban. They still make the high capacity mags, but they are only legal to sell to LE or Mil.

Don't get me wrong Mal, I'm not arguing that the waffler argument is accurate, only that it's easy to make against ANY legislator on either side of the aisle. Substanital foreign policy experience can come from plenty of places beyond the legislature though, State Dept/ambassadorship, NSC, NSA, CIA....Bush 41 was in the House of Rep (lost two runs for senate), but got his real FP experience through being Ambassador the UN, and Director of the CIA right?

You can get a private dancer in the VIP room for about $50.

Kerry suffers from the "curse of the legislator". Any voting record can be spun. If you vote for something, say extending medicare entitlements, and five years later vote against a bill on the same issue because there is a shitload of unrelated pork riders on the bill....then you're a flip-flopper. Who was the last long-time legislator to win the presidency? It's very difficult and the nuanced debate in teh legislative chambers and conference committees is much different than the black and white firm stance issues needed in a popular election. Governors typically have an easier time than legislators. Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter...all former governors.

I'll grant you that he's smarter than he comes across. His basic intellectual ability is not my concern. His narrow-mindedness and Texas redneck loose cannon/frat jock/born-again fundamentalist aspects are what worry me. I personally subscribe to the "can't know every nuance of every issue so surround yourself with people who can elucidate both sides of the issues" school of governance, but letting your underlings recklessly pursue their own agendas is absurd. I'm referring to Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. A few doozies: "I don't read the newspapers." "Bring it on" "Axis of evil" "give them a thorough trouncin'" "Mission accomplished"

No problem Chuck, I'll post it for you. Here are the Republicans who BETRAYED Shrub and the GOP and voted for the bill along with those dirty dems: Bond, MO Chafee, RI Collins, ME DeWine, OH Dole, NC MCCAIN, AZ Murkowski, AK Smith, OR Snow, ME Specter, PA Talent, MO Voinovich, OH Or maybe Bush should rail against his Dem buddy, Sen Zell Miller from Georgia a republican in all but name who voted against the bill...he singlehandedly could have swung the vote and he was there to do it.

Watch out for them cheater sticks though MisterE. You might have to counter with the big wall canned chili fart.

And never mind that any one of the 40 REPUBLICANS who voted against it could have also swung the vote if they had supported extending the benefits? Perhaps Shrub's little lapdog Schmidt should be scolding the 40 members of HIS OWN PARTY WHO VOTED AGAINST IT rather than Kerry who was actually for it? Who's playing politics here? Both sides obviously. C'mon Fairweather, I think Kerry is a joke, but you can do better than this.