Solution to the oil problem

[Sihouette]

*gets out nastiometer*

Hmmm...judging from the current readings...*adjusts dial*...it would appear that BigOil-bots are nervous about the electric car subject...

*Jots in notebook*...

 

[Andy]

I never did accuse you of saying that all mc insurance was $1200. We specifically were talking about an 1100cc and you know what you said. I have found your words for you, albeit from where Genseneca is quoting you. I would assume it's accurate unless Genseneca is just another of you lying Americans. I didn't search further because you may have already deleted yoiur words and maybe it's just a good job that Gensen quoted you.

Sigh... no I can not delete my words if I wanted to, but then I don't want to anyway because I'm right. I have no need to change what I said when... I'm correct.

For your viewing pleasure, I shall repost the section that I was talking about, in it's fullness from post #158 of this thread. Within post #158, I reprinted from the web site http://www.rybu.org/?q=node/22 the post entitled "Getting to know ICBC" in which he states as follows. (note: these are not my words, they are reprinted from the blog)

Consider this. I have an 1140cc motorcycle which has been insured in several places: Rochester NY, Eugene OR, Edmonton AB, Bonn Germany, Paris France and now Victoria, BC. Insurance for this motorcycle was pretty cheap in Alberta at $160/year. In France my bills added up to about 400 EUR per year. In Germany, it only cost 200 EUR per year (both my European policies insured the bike for all Europe and North Africa). My insurance in Eugene and Rochester was a bit more expensive since it was comprehensive insurance. These policies were about USD $700-$900/year. 3rd party liability insurance would have been in the USD $300/year range at that time. In BC minimal insurance for this motorcycle is $1200/year. At first I thought, "this has to be wrong". But I've since learned this is really the insurance rate that is deemed fair in BC. I would like to know why this is considered fair.

To find out, I've been talking with the ICBC Ombudsman, Janet McKennon. She originally tried to convince me that I'm getting higher-quality insurance for my money in BC. I tried to convince her that such a statement was very difficult to confirm, and even if it was true, my BC insurance policy is certainly not worth 8 times what my Alberta policy provided me. For the kind of money ICBC is charging me, I'd expect free fuel, oil, tires, and someone to occasionally come into my apartment and clean up after me.

Thus I said... based on his words, not mine...

"U.S. private comprehensive is $900, and ICBC minimal is $1200."
Which, based on the quotes HE received... is true.

Thus, if order for you to claim that I lied... you must prove that this website http://www.rybu.org/?q=node/22, does not say the above quote. If it does, all else is irrelevent, because I didn't lie. Now if you wish to prove he lied, feel free and contact him disputing the quotes he got, and when he changes his website to reflect the new 'truthful' information, then I too will change what I am saying.

Once again, I, being the American, am telling the truth. If anyone is lying, it would have to be this Canadian guy here, along with the thousands of others with similar stories, that must be lying. I'm only telling you, what they have written.

However, you are not going to dispute their statements because, just based on the information you have given, it's clear that rates are far higher under the socialist system. You can nail down whatever rate you choose, it's still far higher than in the U.S., or Germany, Alberta, or in most places, other than possibly Ontario which is nutz.

And now I'm going to just have to insist that you apologize to me again and you promise this time to not lie to me anymore. Until I am assured that I am talking to an honest person I'm not goint to go to the trouble of wasting time with you.

Sure. I promise I have not lied to you, and I apologize that the simple concepts I used to relay information confused you into thinking I did.

 

[Andy]

*gets out nastiometer*

Hmmm...judging from the current readings...*adjusts dial*...it would appear that BigOil-bots are nervous about the electric car subject...

*Jots in notebook*...

 

[UShadItComing]

Re: Solution to the oil problem

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never did accuse you of saying that all mc insurance was $1200. We specifically were talking about an 1100cc and you know what you said. I have found your words for you, albeit from where Genseneca is quoting you. I would assume it's accurate unless Genseneca is just another of you lying Americans. I didn't search further because you may have already deleted yoiur words and maybe it's just a good job that Gensen quoted you.

------------------------

Andy wrote:
Quote:
Please locate where I said that $1200 was the minimum for motorcycle insurance. Since all the posts are here, give me the post number and exact quote that I specifically said that all motorcycle insurance was $1200.

----------------------

post #161 by Genseneca as follows:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy
U.S. private comprehensive is $900, and ICBC minimal is $1200.
I am not convinced.

And now I'm going to just have to insist that you apologize to me again and you promise this time to not lie to me anymore. Until I am assured that I am talking to an honest person I'm not goint to go to the trouble of wasting time with you.

Shame on you American capitalist liar!

I can't forgive you until you apologize for lying to me, no matter how much you twist and turn in the wind now Andy. This time I'll just let you have your way on agreeing to disagree. Sorry, I just don't have an respect for you anymore.

Maybe in the morning I'll respect you more?

 

[PLC1]

We all knew lithium would be the big battery of the future of electric cars. I can hear BigOil groaning audibly.



They'll keep tweaking the technology and each year will greet us with more and more efficient batteries for the future: electric cars which potentially could plug into your home solar system. Imagine "gas" for pennies to shuttle you and your family around?

Sweeeeeeeet!

(Hey GM, go out to the desert and resurrect those new cars you buried nearly a decade ago.)

This one has lithium ion batteries, and is available with today's technology. It goes 1-60 in four seconds, so the sport car look is more than just appearance.

The website doesn't say anything about price, however. That could be a small problem for most of us.

 

[GenSeneca]

Tesla Roadster... They run around 100k and notable names such as Arnold Schwarzenegger have already signed up for the vehicle. They are sweet rides, wish I could afford one...

 

[Sihouette]

Well, mass production and competition will take care of the price, just like with any "new" product.

That's something I could get used to. Thanks for the post.

 

[Dr.Who]

We all knew lithium would be the big battery of the future of electric cars. I can hear BigOil groaning audibly.



They'll keep tweaking the technology and each year will greet us with more and more efficient batteries for the future: electric cars which potentially could plug into your home solar system. Imagine "gas" for pennies to shuttle you and your family around?

Sweeeeeeeet!

(Hey GM, go out to the desert and resurrect those new cars you buried nearly a decade ago.)

At present panels produce very little electricity and cars store very little. But if we look at the history of other machines from refrigerators to calculators we can look forward to electric cars that will do just that.

So I guess there is no reason not to just use up all the oil we have now.

 

[Andy]

I can't forgive you until you apologize for lying to me, no matter how much you twist and turn in the wind now Andy. This time I'll just let you have your way on agreeing to disagree. Sorry, I just don't have an respect for you anymore.

Maybe in the morning I'll respect you more?

Oh nice. So given you didn't respond to a single thing I said, and even went so far as to quote yourself, to avoid quoting my truthful post, I suppose this is yet another admission of defeat? 3rd post saying "I lost" from you. Let's go for a 4th.

Socialist biting the dust in progress.

 

[Andy]

Well, mass production and competition will take care of the price, just like with any "new" product.

That's something I could get used to. Thanks for the post.

It didn't for GM. That's why they killed the EV1, it was costing them too much money to produce.

Time to hit the reality fan. People use "mass production" as a cure all to price. It's not. The biggest most expensive thing on the car is the battery pack, and you can mass produce the car all you like, that pack isn't coming down in price any time soon.

 

[UShadItComing]

It was more an attempt to just post the same response to you Andy but it didn't copy well. I think that you have made up your mind that socialist policies or government run corps can't work and I find that just a closedminded attitude. I was more interested in debating and discussing the issues with somebody who didn't have such a dogmatic approach to the issues.

I would be the first to admit that socialism doesn't work and in fact you Americans don't even seem to be able to get together on whether or not Canada is too socialist or the opposite now. I guess you have at least admitted that we are not a socialist country, at least those on this forum. Elsewhere you will find Americans calling Canada a socialist country and quite happy in their beliefs.

The intent of the discussioin from the start was to debate the fact that capitalism needs a healthy mix of social policies to enable it to succeed. If you are not able to accept at least that statement then I think we just don't have any common ground.

Would you like to pursue the issue further in a general sense. Your (yours I think) flower shop scenario was a good one in my opinion. I perhaps should have responded with: If the owner of the shop decided to employ illegal aliens from Mexico then it would be a different situation from where he would employ Americans at minimum wage or better. This would be my answer to your question of where the socialism is in that situation. It is clear to me that the right doesn't believe that a minimum wage is necessary while I believe that if a minimum wage is not enacted then there are many pitfalls which occur in business and with workers.

If you think there is any value in pursuing that for a starter then please do. I'm just not prepared to argue whether or not ICBC has been a success or not, based on your inablity to even consider the notion that it even 'could' be a success right from the start.

 

[Andy]

It was more an attempt to just post the same response to you Andy but it didn't copy well.

But the same response is still wrong. I did not, nor have I, lied. I posted what was printed on the web site. Until you figure that out, you are unable to carry on a decent conversation. You can't just make up things you misinterpret and claim others lied about them. It's foolish, it's childish, and stupid.

"Mommy, can I go out later?" "Maybe Timmy." later on...
"Can I go out?" "No, it's too late" "BUT YOU PROMISED! You said I could! Wah!"

Maybe you should apologize to me for the immature way you handled this whole thing?

I think that you have made up your mind that socialist policies or government run corps can't work and I find that just a closedminded attitude. I was more interested in debating and discussing the issues with somebody who didn't have such a dogmatic approach to the issues.

Sorry, I tend to deal in facts. If the fact contradict your theories, I can't help that. I can't help the fact your socialist insurance is roughly three times as expensive as other non-socialist insurance is. I didn't make the policy premiums, I just reported them to you.

I tend not to hold out "open minded" theories that are consistently proven false. I'm pretty closed minded that the world is round too. I suppose I should be open minded that there could be a possibility it really is flat.

I would be the first to admit that socialism doesn't work and in fact you Americans don't even seem to be able to get together on whether or not Canada is too socialist or the opposite now. I guess you have at least admitted that we are not a socialist country, at least those on this forum. Elsewhere you will find Americans calling Canada a socialist country and quite happy in their beliefs.

Again, arguments based on labeling are logical fallacies. Stop playing the label game. You don't just label an entire country "Socialist" or "Capitalist" unless the entire, 100% of the economy, is under one system or the other. ICBC is undoubtedly Socialist. It's owned by the government. That is a defining part of socialism. Canadian health care is undoubtedly socialist too. Now, other parts of the country are clearly not socialized, like Alberta where the premiums are $208/year.

You can sit and claim that the US is "Capitalist", but then there's medicare, medicaid, social security, HUD, USPS, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Food stamps, Welfare, EPA, and at least a dozen or more industries with more red tape covering every aspect of operation. None of this is Capitalist.

The intent of the discussioin from the start was to debate the fact that capitalism needs a healthy mix of social policies to enable it to succeed. If you are not able to accept at least that statement then I think we just don't have any common ground.

By social policies, you mean enforcement of the law? Or do you mean social policies as in socialism? There is a major distinction to me. Enforcement of the law simply means not ripping people off, not stealing, not murdering, not playing accounting games, not dumping 50 tons of nuclear waste in a school yard. That's simply enforcing the law.

Or do you mean socialism? Like dictating how much a company charges, or dictating what product must be sold, or dictating how much is paid, or who is hired, or who can buy it. All of these are socialism, and they are not necessary. You can't show me a single example where if these laws did not exists, that our economy would in any way be crippled. In fact, in most cases I can show you where these laws did cripple our economy.

Would you like to pursue the issue further in a general sense. Your (yours I think) flower shop scenario was a good one in my opinion. I perhaps should have responded with: If the owner of the shop decided to employ illegal aliens from Mexico then it would be a different situation from where he would employ Americans at minimum wage or better. This would be my answer to your question of where the socialism is in that situation. It is clear to me that the right doesn't believe that a minimum wage is necessary while I believe that if a minimum wage is not enacted then there are many pitfalls which occur in business and with workers.

But see you are still missing the point. You have to convince me that our economy would not function in a theoretical situation where there are no socialistic policies. If there were no socialistic policies, the flower shop would hire Americans, because there wouldn't be a minimum wage to try and get around.

You are pointing to a problem CAUSED by socialism, as a reason for claiming we need socialism to fix the problem it CAUSED to begin with.

With that, yes. I believe in the Constitution of the U.S., that brought the U.S. to be the leading super power of the planet. The Constitution does in fact state that the federal government has no power to enact, nor enforce a minimum wage.

Further based on numerous report and data, and based on my own personal experience, the minimum wage is a huge economic negative. Part of the reason our business are having a hard time competing in a world market is because our labor is expensive, and part of that is due to the minimum wage. So yes, I am against the minimum wage.

If you think there is any value in pursuing that for a starter then please do. I'm just not prepared to argue whether or not ICBC has been a success or not, based on your inablity to even consider the notion that it even 'could' be a success right from the start.

Well, how about you... would you rather pay $500-600 under ICBC or $208 in Alberta?

 

[UShadItComing]

Andy asked:

Well, how about you... would you rather pay $500-600 under ICBC or $208 in Alberta?

I would rather pay $208. And if Alberta insurance was better than ICBC and it didn't cost more then I would rather have Alberta insurance. If you are able to convince me that is generally the case with all auto insurance then you will have convinced me to oppose ICBC. My opinion at the moment is that ICBC is better and cheaper and is actually raved about by British Columbians.

Thanks for your interest.

 

[Andy]

Andy asked:

I would rather pay $208. And if Alberta insurance was better than ICBC and it didn't cost more then I would rather have Alberta insurance. If you are able to convince me that is generally the case with all auto insurance then you will have convinced me to oppose ICBC. My opinion at the moment is that ICBC is better and cheaper and is actually raved about by British Columbians.

Thanks for your interest.

Sure. How much is your ICBC auto insurance and what type of car do you drive? I'll look it up. I wager it's cheaper both here and in Alberta.

 

[Sihouette]

The 21st Century is ushering in a new type of energy system for the United States. You can either be on that boat, or stay on the Titanic.

Smart people will soon be boarding the life rafts to reboard the Good Ship "Alternatives".