Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (110391)	9/27/2008 9:19:29 AM
From: KyrosL	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206349

Nothing can beat a $4/gallon gasoline tax, if we really think reduction of oil imports is a good strategy for the US. Flexible fuels? How long did it take Brazil to get there? Answer: too long.

To: carranza2 who wrote (110391)	9/27/2008 9:23:42 AM
From: elmatador	1 Recommendation Respond to of 206349

The new president should therefore declare a strategic goal to break the petroleum standard and replace it with an Open Fuel Standard. This would require that every automobile sold in the United States (and, by extension, throughout the world, since no automaker would give up on the U.S. market) must be able to run on non-petroleum fuels in addition to gasoline. Flexible fuel cars (which cost automakers $100 extra to make and can run on any combination of alcohol and gasoline), electric cars and plug-in hybrids cars (which enable us to use made-in-America electricity) are only some of the solutions at hand. Only through competition at the pump (and the socket) we can drive down the price of oil, reduce its strategic value and curb the transfer of wealth from oil importing countries to OPEC. To bring those solutions to the marketplace in mass would require some presidential signatures, and like everything in life there is some cost involved. But christening more aircraft carriers than would otherwise be needed isn’t cheap either... AND NO WORD ABOUT THE TARIFF ON OUR ETHANOL!!!!

To: carranza2 who wrote (110391)	9/27/2008 9:43:27 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	1 Recommendation Respond to of 206349

Odd that he doesn't mention compressed natural gas fueled cars, which are already available.

To: carranza2 who wrote (110391)	9/27/2008 1:36:07 PM
From: Don Hurst	2 Recommendations Respond to of 206349

>>" To bring those solutions to the marketplace in mass would require some presidential signatures, and like everything in life there is some cost involved. But christening more aircraft carriers than would otherwise be needed isn’t cheap either. "<< And Congress just increased the "Defense?" budget to $630 Bn and this does not include those "emergency?" unfunded supplementals of $12 Bn a month for Iraq. On top of that we had both guys last night agreeing that we should keep going on with $Bns for the 21st century Maginot Line in Alaska and continue to piss off the Russians by dumping $1 Bn into Georgia, expand NATO into Georgia and the Ukraine (migosh, the Russians use the Crimea for their Naval Fleet HQ and 1/2 half the Ukraine speaks Russian) and continue on with those idiotic Missile Defense Systems in eastern Europe which btw do not work (the Poles think they make sausage) but will defend us against non-existent Iranian ICBMs which they first need to "Wipe Israel off the Map??" which btw when translated back into Farsi means "I love Manischewitz". Not too worry...more emergency "supplementals" unfunded of course, are readily available for the forthcoming preemptive invasion of Russia. Spend on alternative energy???...NAAH, where is the "glory" in that??