Oh yes, the usual baloney that extra taxes, fees, duties, etc. are the solution to all of our problems.
Y'all willing to pay European prices for gas?
- Thread starter Speak2Mountain
- Start date
- Status
We need to pull out from Europe, as they are incapable of staying away from fighting with each other anyway. Otherwise, they get into all those chilliastic socialism societal models that go back all the way to Plato's Republic. let's get them busy. Until the next Marshall Plan.
Originally Posted By: 555
Originally Posted By: 555
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: 555
Marketing subterfuge.
The problem with E85 is that it relies on government subsidization(is that a word?)to keep the price low.
Ok, I'll bite. Would you outline the actual subsidies for ethanol that are paid to the Chicago Market Board that affects ethanol prices? Ethanol prices are dictated by the same market as any other fuel. Ethanol is traded and bid on. The producers have nothing to say in that. Even then, there have been no direct government subsidies for ethanol production since 2011. They were eliminated that year.
So many myths. So little time.
I will look into it. Thanks for the info. Travelling at the moment. Miss my keyboard.
You are correct about the subsidies ending in 2011 but the tax incentives continue. I will revisit with more info when possible.
So does the common back-door subsidy coming from places REQUIRING E-10 gas.
Originally Posted By: 555
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: 555
Marketing subterfuge.
The problem with E85 is that it relies on government subsidization(is that a word?)to keep the price low.
Ok, I'll bite. Would you outline the actual subsidies for ethanol that are paid to the Chicago Market Board that affects ethanol prices? Ethanol prices are dictated by the same market as any other fuel. Ethanol is traded and bid on. The producers have nothing to say in that. Even then, there have been no direct government subsidies for ethanol production since 2011. They were eliminated that year.
So many myths. So little time.
I will look into it. Thanks for the info. Travelling at the moment. Miss my keyboard.
You are correct about the subsidies ending in 2011 but the tax incentives continue. I will revisit with more info when possible.
So does the common back-door subsidy coming from places REQUIRING E-10 gas.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Without wanting to be overly provocative, I've never understood why the US, with it's gargantuan national debt ($US 18.96 trillion according to Wikipedia), doesn't slowly but steadily introduce European-style fuel taxes. You get the debt down, everyone pays equally, over time you drive the vehicle parc to be more efficient, less fuel gets consumed & you import less 'foreign' oil. For me that's a lot of significant wins.
Regarding the 'green thing', yes I know there are a lot of folks in the US that think global warming & climate change is a huge Chinese orchestrated conspiracy but if the scientists (include your scientists!) are right, then it's more catastrophic effects are most likely to be felt first by continental North America. California will 'cook' and the Eastern Seaboard will disappear for good under 40 foot of snow.
Don't get me wrong. In one way, I'm all for a bit of global warming as it will transform our damp, miserable island into a Mediterranean-like paradise. However if the US ceases to be, where will we get our next fix of Game Of Thrones from?
Never happen.
Without wanting to be overly provocative, I've never understood why the US, with it's gargantuan national debt ($US 18.96 trillion according to Wikipedia), doesn't slowly but steadily introduce European-style fuel taxes. You get the debt down, everyone pays equally, over time you drive the vehicle parc to be more efficient, less fuel gets consumed & you import less 'foreign' oil. For me that's a lot of significant wins.
Regarding the 'green thing', yes I know there are a lot of folks in the US that think global warming & climate change is a huge Chinese orchestrated conspiracy but if the scientists (include your scientists!) are right, then it's more catastrophic effects are most likely to be felt first by continental North America. California will 'cook' and the Eastern Seaboard will disappear for good under 40 foot of snow.
Don't get me wrong. In one way, I'm all for a bit of global warming as it will transform our damp, miserable island into a Mediterranean-like paradise. However if the US ceases to be, where will we get our next fix of Game Of Thrones from?
Never happen.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Without wanting to be overly provocative, I've never understood why the US, with it's gargantuan national debt ($US 18.96 trillion according to Wikipedia), doesn't slowly but steadily introduce European-style fuel taxes. You get the debt down, everyone pays equally, over time you drive the vehicle parc to be more efficient, less fuel gets consumed & you import less 'foreign' oil. For me that's a lot of significant wins.
Regarding the 'green thing', yes I know there are a lot of folks in the US that think global warming & climate change is a huge Chinese orchestrated conspiracy but if the scientists (include your scientists!) are right, then it's more catastrophic effects are most likely to be felt first by continental North America. California will 'cook' and the Eastern Seaboard will disappear for good under 40 foot of snow.
Don't get me wrong. In one way, I'm all for a bit of global warming as it will transform our damp, miserable island into a Mediterranean-like paradise. However if the US ceases to be, where will we get our next fix of Game Of Thrones from?
Come on everybody knows climate change is a fake orchestrated by the Chinese, the Jews, Reptilians, and the devil (a.k.a Barack Hussein Obama )
Also you should install Alex Jones's water filters so the chemicals that the government puts in the water don't turn you, your kids, and the frogs gay.
Without wanting to be overly provocative, I've never understood why the US, with it's gargantuan national debt ($US 18.96 trillion according to Wikipedia), doesn't slowly but steadily introduce European-style fuel taxes. You get the debt down, everyone pays equally, over time you drive the vehicle parc to be more efficient, less fuel gets consumed & you import less 'foreign' oil. For me that's a lot of significant wins.
Regarding the 'green thing', yes I know there are a lot of folks in the US that think global warming & climate change is a huge Chinese orchestrated conspiracy but if the scientists (include your scientists!) are right, then it's more catastrophic effects are most likely to be felt first by continental North America. California will 'cook' and the Eastern Seaboard will disappear for good under 40 foot of snow.
Don't get me wrong. In one way, I'm all for a bit of global warming as it will transform our damp, miserable island into a Mediterranean-like paradise. However if the US ceases to be, where will we get our next fix of Game Of Thrones from?
Come on everybody knows climate change is a fake orchestrated by the Chinese, the Jews, Reptilians, and the devil (a.k.a Barack Hussein Obama )
Also you should install Alex Jones's water filters so the chemicals that the government puts in the water don't turn you, your kids, and the frogs gay.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Without wanting to be overly provocative, I've never understood why the US, with it's gargantuan national debt ($US 18.96 trillion according to Wikipedia), doesn't slowly but steadily introduce European-style fuel taxes. You get the debt down, everyone pays equally, over time you drive the vehicle parc to be more efficient, less fuel gets consumed & you import less 'foreign' oil. For me that's a lot of significant wins.
Regarding the 'green thing', yes I know there are a lot of folks in the US that think global warming & climate change is a huge Chinese orchestrated conspiracy but if the scientists (include your scientists!) are right, then it's more catastrophic effects are most likely to be felt first by continental North America. California will 'cook' and the Eastern Seaboard will disappear for good under 40 foot of snow.
Don't get me wrong. In one way, I'm all for a bit of global warming as it will transform our damp, miserable island into a Mediterranean-like paradise. However if the US ceases to be, where will we get our next fix of Game Of Thrones from?
The massive gasoline tax in Europe is insanely regressive. That means the poor spend a large portion of their income on fuel tax. The Europeans constantly brag about how they love the poor and downtrodden so much. How free and fair everything is blah blah. Yet all the best stuff comes out of here and probably will for a 1000 years.
Without wanting to be overly provocative, I've never understood why the US, with it's gargantuan national debt ($US 18.96 trillion according to Wikipedia), doesn't slowly but steadily introduce European-style fuel taxes. You get the debt down, everyone pays equally, over time you drive the vehicle parc to be more efficient, less fuel gets consumed & you import less 'foreign' oil. For me that's a lot of significant wins.
Regarding the 'green thing', yes I know there are a lot of folks in the US that think global warming & climate change is a huge Chinese orchestrated conspiracy but if the scientists (include your scientists!) are right, then it's more catastrophic effects are most likely to be felt first by continental North America. California will 'cook' and the Eastern Seaboard will disappear for good under 40 foot of snow.
Don't get me wrong. In one way, I'm all for a bit of global warming as it will transform our damp, miserable island into a Mediterranean-like paradise. However if the US ceases to be, where will we get our next fix of Game Of Thrones from?
The massive gasoline tax in Europe is insanely regressive. That means the poor spend a large portion of their income on fuel tax. The Europeans constantly brag about how they love the poor and downtrodden so much. How free and fair everything is blah blah. Yet all the best stuff comes out of here and probably will for a 1000 years.
Last edited:
I know next to nadda about Europe. But I'm under the impression that it's pretty easy to live close to someplace with "good" public transportation. Or at least someplace that is bicycle friendly. If true, is a high gas tax really regressive? Poor people aren't forced into car ownership, or at least into long distance commuting. As opposed to this side of the pond, where it's commonplace for cities to have poor public transit, minimal attention to bicycles, and it's just plain easier to drive.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Y'all willing to read "industry news" written by an ignoramus who doesn't know the difference between US and European systems?
Imagine his next article: a sixty percent improvement in range for the same car, just by switching to The Metric System!
You used to go 300 miles on a tank, now go 500 KM! An amazing 60% improvement in range just by switching to European standards!
Wow!
lol!
Y'all willing to read "industry news" written by an ignoramus who doesn't know the difference between US and European systems?
Imagine his next article: a sixty percent improvement in range for the same car, just by switching to The Metric System!
You used to go 300 miles on a tank, now go 500 KM! An amazing 60% improvement in range just by switching to European standards!
Wow!
lol!
Oh dear! It seems I've upset people (again!).
Can I just say that although we occasionally have a good old moan, I don't think that tax on fuel is that regressive. It's no more regressive than the 20% VAT we pay on most things (in fact we pay both fuel duty AND VAT on fuel). The majority of tax in the UK is paid by the rich and the professional middle class but it's important that everyone pays SOMETHING into the pot because everyone takes stuff that gets paid for out of the pot. BTW, please credit us with some sense. We know very well that stuff isn't 'free' and that it has to be paid for, but to us, communally paying for stuff like health through tax makes infinite sense. It's massively cheaper, more efficient and less corrupt than the US way of doing things. If Walter White had lived in England, he wouldn't have had to resort to selling meth because he wouldn't have needed money to pay for his cancer treatment.
To the person who thinks all the best things come out of the US, could I possibly mention jet engines (GE were nowhere until we gave you one to play with), supersonic flight (Bell Aircraft only managed this after nicking all of the R&D on the Miles M-52), computers (IBM swiped all its early R&D from Manchester University), Radar (which the Tizard Mission gave you free, gratis and for nothing, penicillin (which Ely Lily shamelessly patented while we were focussed on getting it out to allied troops so they didn't die), the Internet and The Bomb (the critical early R&D from Birmingham University we gave you went unread until Chadwick et al gave your guys a good kick up the arse!). AND we gave the world Downtown Abbey & Led Zeppelin so there!
To the person that said we were always at war with each other and brought up The Marshall Plan, can I possibly mention that between 1861 and 1865 you were butchering each other with unprecedented viscousness and before that you were happily exterminating the Native American population without any help from us. Also your post Civil War reconstruction was financed primarily by us. Oh, and we also financed most of the railroads critical to opening up The West. Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Can I just say that although we occasionally have a good old moan, I don't think that tax on fuel is that regressive. It's no more regressive than the 20% VAT we pay on most things (in fact we pay both fuel duty AND VAT on fuel). The majority of tax in the UK is paid by the rich and the professional middle class but it's important that everyone pays SOMETHING into the pot because everyone takes stuff that gets paid for out of the pot. BTW, please credit us with some sense. We know very well that stuff isn't 'free' and that it has to be paid for, but to us, communally paying for stuff like health through tax makes infinite sense. It's massively cheaper, more efficient and less corrupt than the US way of doing things. If Walter White had lived in England, he wouldn't have had to resort to selling meth because he wouldn't have needed money to pay for his cancer treatment.
To the person who thinks all the best things come out of the US, could I possibly mention jet engines (GE were nowhere until we gave you one to play with), supersonic flight (Bell Aircraft only managed this after nicking all of the R&D on the Miles M-52), computers (IBM swiped all its early R&D from Manchester University), Radar (which the Tizard Mission gave you free, gratis and for nothing, penicillin (which Ely Lily shamelessly patented while we were focussed on getting it out to allied troops so they didn't die), the Internet and The Bomb (the critical early R&D from Birmingham University we gave you went unread until Chadwick et al gave your guys a good kick up the arse!). AND we gave the world Downtown Abbey & Led Zeppelin so there!
To the person that said we were always at war with each other and brought up The Marshall Plan, can I possibly mention that between 1861 and 1865 you were butchering each other with unprecedented viscousness and before that you were happily exterminating the Native American population without any help from us. Also your post Civil War reconstruction was financed primarily by us. Oh, and we also financed most of the railroads critical to opening up The West. Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Right Mr Erudite, 1961, very height of the Cuban missile crisis, the world's on the brink of a real life, full nuclear exchange...so the first Russian nukes are going to hit who first, the UK or the US? Also the first nukes that drop on the USSR come from where, GB of the US?? You may not like the answer but we would have gotten vapourised first simply because we were closer to the USSR, but not before British Vulcans and Valiants had taken off to drop a whole load of nukes on the Sovs (again long before your B-52's had got a punch in). So who was guaranteeing who's security exactly??? Looks to me that we were guaranteeing yours!
And today, you're guaranteeing our security from whom exactly??? The Russians? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese? North Korea? Actually the country that might represent a real and present danger is the one country that has more arms than the rest of the world put together and is beginning to look very unstable. Now who could that be do you think??
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Right Mr Erudite, 1961, very height of the Cuban missile crisis, the world's on the brink of a real life, full nuclear exchange...so the first Russian nukes are going to hit who first, the UK or the US? Also the first nukes that drop on the USSR come from where, GB of the US?? You may not like the answer but we would have gotten vapourised first simply because we were closer to the USSR, but not before British Vulcans and Valiants had taken off to drop a whole load of nukes on the Sovs (again long before your B-52's had got a punch in). So who was guaranteeing who's security exactly??? Looks to me that we were guaranteeing yours!
And today, you're guaranteeing our security from whom exactly??? The Russians? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese? North Korea? Actually the country that might represent a real and present danger is the one country that has more arms than the rest of the world put together and is beginning to look very unstable. Now who could that be do you think??
It is so far past time we end NATO.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Right Mr Erudite, 1961, very height of the Cuban missile crisis, the world's on the brink of a real life, full nuclear exchange...so the first Russian nukes are going to hit who first, the UK or the US? Also the first nukes that drop on the USSR come from where, GB of the US?? You may not like the answer but we would have gotten vapourised first simply because we were closer to the USSR, but not before British Vulcans and Valiants had taken off to drop a whole load of nukes on the Sovs (again long before your B-52's had got a punch in). So who was guaranteeing who's security exactly??? Looks to me that we were guaranteeing yours!
And today, you're guaranteeing our security from whom exactly??? The Russians? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese? North Korea? Actually the country that might represent a real and present danger is the one country that has more arms than the rest of the world put together and is beginning to look very unstable. Now who could that be do you think??
Who still curtsys to a Queen? I just don't know if I can respect a people who do that.
Your reality is skewed.
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Right Mr Erudite, 1961, very height of the Cuban missile crisis, the world's on the brink of a real life, full nuclear exchange...so the first Russian nukes are going to hit who first, the UK or the US? Also the first nukes that drop on the USSR come from where, GB of the US?? You may not like the answer but we would have gotten vapourised first simply because we were closer to the USSR, but not before British Vulcans and Valiants had taken off to drop a whole load of nukes on the Sovs (again long before your B-52's had got a punch in). So who was guaranteeing who's security exactly??? Looks to me that we were guaranteeing yours!
And today, you're guaranteeing our security from whom exactly??? The Russians? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese? North Korea? Actually the country that might represent a real and present danger is the one country that has more arms than the rest of the world put together and is beginning to look very unstable. Now who could that be do you think??
Who still curtsys to a Queen? I just don't know if I can respect a people who do that.
Your reality is skewed.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Right Mr Erudite, 1961, very height of the Cuban missile crisis, the world's on the brink of a real life, full nuclear exchange...so the first Russian nukes are going to hit who first, the UK or the US? Also the first nukes that drop on the USSR come from where, GB of the US?? You may not like the answer but we would have gotten vapourised first simply because we were closer to the USSR, but not before British Vulcans and Valiants had taken off to drop a whole load of nukes on the Sovs (again long before your B-52's had got a punch in). So who was guaranteeing who's security exactly??? Looks to me that we were guaranteeing yours!
And today, you're guaranteeing our security from whom exactly??? The Russians? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese? North Korea? Actually the country that might represent a real and present danger is the one country that has more arms than the rest of the world put together and is beginning to look very unstable. Now who could that be do you think??
Who still curtsys to a Queen? I just don't know if I can respect a people who do that.
Your reality is skewed.
But, if you met him in the street, you presumably would accord to a man with three brain cells at most, the respectful title of 'Mr President'. What's the difference?
Tell me one thing I've said that's factually incorrect and I'll happily concede the argument. Until then I'm basically okay with my world view.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Have you heard of Wikipedia? It's very good. You should read it sometime.
Is this where your knowledge comes from? Oh dear! No denying of a leading role in Scientific Quest on part of the old culture. You just happened to be saved twice in the previous century. The sun would never come down over the British Empire in 1916, but just one generation it took to stand with your hand out. Which can happen anywhere, of course...
Wiki or not, it's so convenient to spit in the face of the ones who guarantee your security.
Right Mr Erudite, 1961, very height of the Cuban missile crisis, the world's on the brink of a real life, full nuclear exchange...so the first Russian nukes are going to hit who first, the UK or the US? Also the first nukes that drop on the USSR come from where, GB of the US?? You may not like the answer but we would have gotten vapourised first simply because we were closer to the USSR, but not before British Vulcans and Valiants had taken off to drop a whole load of nukes on the Sovs (again long before your B-52's had got a punch in). So who was guaranteeing who's security exactly??? Looks to me that we were guaranteeing yours!
And today, you're guaranteeing our security from whom exactly??? The Russians? Don't make me laugh. The Chinese? North Korea? Actually the country that might represent a real and present danger is the one country that has more arms than the rest of the world put together and is beginning to look very unstable. Now who could that be do you think??
Who still curtsys to a Queen? I just don't know if I can respect a people who do that.
Your reality is skewed.
But, if you met him in the street, you presumably would accord to a man with three brain cells at most, the respectful title of 'Mr President'. What's the difference?
Tell me one thing I've said that's factually incorrect and I'll happily concede the argument. Until then I'm basically okay with my world view.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Oh dear! It seems I've upset people (again!).
Haven't bothered me yet. Not sure I agree with you on all points, but hasn't raise one iota of ire on my part. If anything I sympathize, not sure why the old canard of saving Europe every so often keeps coming around.
I'm still curious if others think high gas taxes is regressive if alternatives to car ownership exist. Different cultures accomplish the same thing but often through different means; and as a result I'm wondering if a particular tax could be regressive in one country yet not regressive in another.
Oh dear! It seems I've upset people (again!).
Haven't bothered me yet. Not sure I agree with you on all points, but hasn't raise one iota of ire on my part. If anything I sympathize, not sure why the old canard of saving Europe every so often keeps coming around.
I'm still curious if others think high gas taxes is regressive if alternatives to car ownership exist. Different cultures accomplish the same thing but often through different means; and as a result I'm wondering if a particular tax could be regressive in one country yet not regressive in another.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Until then I'm basically okay with my world view.
Of course you are, just as you were under your first incarnation on this board.
Until then I'm basically okay with my world view.
Of course you are, just as you were under your first incarnation on this board.
The high fuel prices are balanced with :
1 - Cars that are more fuel efficient
2 - Good public transport
3 - Shorter driving distances
The US should try to make better and affordable public transport.
Also this is slowly but surely turning into a typical USA vs Europe **** measuring contest...
1 - Cars that are more fuel efficient
2 - Good public transport
3 - Shorter driving distances
The US should try to make better and affordable public transport.
Also this is slowly but surely turning into a typical USA vs Europe **** measuring contest...
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
The high fuel prices are balanced with :
1 - Cars that are more fuel efficient
2 - Good public transport
3 - Shorter driving distances
The US should try to make better and affordable public transport.
Easier said than done. It's not as if there hasn't been efforts to do so. It'd take a complete mindset change to pull off. Heck for a while I wanted to minimize my car usage, but ultimately gave into the siren call of having it all: live in the country, drive into the city for work. Why not: economically it works out.
Quote:
Also this is slowly but surely turning into a typical USA vs Europe **** measuring contest...
Pretty much. It's a shame that we can't compare admit strengths/weaknesses without it turning into a competition.
The high fuel prices are balanced with :
1 - Cars that are more fuel efficient
2 - Good public transport
3 - Shorter driving distances
The US should try to make better and affordable public transport.
Easier said than done. It's not as if there hasn't been efforts to do so. It'd take a complete mindset change to pull off. Heck for a while I wanted to minimize my car usage, but ultimately gave into the siren call of having it all: live in the country, drive into the city for work. Why not: economically it works out.
Quote:
Also this is slowly but surely turning into a typical USA vs Europe **** measuring contest...
Pretty much. It's a shame that we can't compare admit strengths/weaknesses without it turning into a competition.
Originally Posted By: supton
[ to minimize my car usage, but ultimately gave into the siren call of having it all: live in the country, drive into the city for work. Why not: economically it works out.
Quote:
Also this is slowly but surely turning into a typical USA vs Europe **** measuring contest...
Pretty much. It's a shame that we can't compare admit strengths/weaknesses without it turning into a competition.
What's cheaper? Driving into the city or living in the city and walking?
There's a reason we started a war with these people. We officially don't think they have any strengths. Spin it however you want, there is a fundamental problem with a blood line ruling a country for thousands of years.
[ to minimize my car usage, but ultimately gave into the siren call of having it all: live in the country, drive into the city for work. Why not: economically it works out.
Quote:
Also this is slowly but surely turning into a typical USA vs Europe **** measuring contest...
Pretty much. It's a shame that we can't compare admit strengths/weaknesses without it turning into a competition.
What's cheaper? Driving into the city or living in the city and walking?
There's a reason we started a war with these people. We officially don't think they have any strengths. Spin it however you want, there is a fundamental problem with a blood line ruling a country for thousands of years.
- Status
Similar threads
