This is perhaps the strangest tangent you've ever taken, Karl. I don't think you really understand the meaning of the word "amoral" (hint: it's not "immoral"). I also don't think you have any clue whatsoever about my beliefs on capitalism, or if do, you're just ignoring them. You've turned into ITN.
http://www.hootersair.com/destinations/airport_info/ I've used it to fly down to FLA a few times for work. always great handing in an expense sheet with HOOTERS AIR at the top.
http://www.hootersair.com/destinations/airport_info/ I've used it to fly down to FLA a few times for work. always great handing in an expense sheet with HOOTERS AIR at the top.
http://www.hootersair.com/destinations/airport_info/ I've used it to fly down to FLA a few times for work. always great handing in an expense sheet with HOOTERS AIR at the top.
Hooters used to fly directly between Gary, Indiana, and Myrtle Beach, SC. I don't know which would be worse for the passengers on that flight: heading out or coming back.
OK, enlighten me. What are your views on capitalism? Let's start with Exxon's earnings reports. What would you do, exactly, about these results, if anything? Let's hear it.
I gave you answers for all your questions. I think the key to this reply that doesn't address my answers is that you didn't understand your own questions to begin with.
Do you not know what "amoral" means? It means it's neither moral nor immoral. I think his views are clear: capitalism is as good (or only as good) as the persons who partake in it.
Nothing. They made the money. They will likely either increase their dividend or make some major capital investments. What, you expected some diatribe against ExxonMobil?
Seriously. Talk to your doctor. I think you're losing it. That is if you ever had it in the first place.
Wait a second, are you confusing "amoral" with "immoral?" You do know the difference, don't you? I mean what with you being a precision thinker and all.
Sorry, I missed this during the Karl invasion. Fair point. Hmm. Then why do I keep hearing about these higher KwH rates for windmills off the coast of Nantucket? Is that all debt service? (Not really debating, now I'm just curious since your response runs counter to what I've heard about wind power.) No. A govt-mandated solution would most likely lead to economic gaming. Instead, a good first step would be to end corporate welfare on fossil fuel production, to at least put all energy alternatives on equal footing financially. I'd also like to see more govt-initiated contracts on transportation that uses other forms of fuel, like CNG-fueled or hybrid public buses. The US Government is the country's largest buyer, and its demand alone could spur further investment in new, cleaner, cheaper energy sources.
Yeah, I'd like to see all city buses converted to runing on liquified coal. In concert with a shift to nuclear, it would have no carbon impact and would make us more energy independent. It would also get the "little technologies" like exhaust diagnostic equipment, timing cicuits, non-drying flexible hoses, etc. out there in the general market.
Well, for over 50 years and counting, Exxon's been pretty pro-active in doing whatever it takes to avoid cleaning up the 17 million gallon mess they made in NYC's Newtown Creek. http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/pollution/we_are_doing/805 http://www.nysun.com/article/23231
Windmills on Nantucket? Didn't a certain Senator from Mass. shoot down such a plan because they 'spoiled his view'? WRT hybrid buses, cities such as Seattle, Portland, San Fran all have started such programs. GM is the world leader in this technology. From what I understand, the US gov't is moving as many cars in their fleet to hybrid or ethanol. They have order quite a few Escape Hybrids and are starting to purchase trucks that run on E85. Also, ending the subsidizing game of gasoline will give rise to more and more diesel cars, which now burn clean and offer improved performance.
I agree that Exxon definitely should plow these profits into new Refineries, but where would you prupose they build these new refineries? Do the letters NIMBY mean anything to you?
Yeah, Exxon only payed $11.8 billion in federal and state taxes in 2004, they certainly are a burden to our government's finances.