When gas prices rise, should the oil industries profit margin rise as well?

[Aperson]

You missed my point. Captilism is not perfect, and Socilism has some good points. That is all.

And, believe it or not, some people do things because they enjoy it, not because they want large sums of money.

[John Prezioso]

I know you'll take it as bias, seeing as how I am a capitalist myself, but, I'll say it anyway. I performed as objective a study of economic models as I could manage given my limited experience, and could find almost no positives in the socialist model. Not that I'm an economic expert or anything. But truly the socialist model seems destined to stagnate or even collapse under its own weight. How can a society excel without competition? What is the incentive to even try to excel? Why should the people who do nothing enjoy the fruits of the labors of those who work hard?

I'm not attacking Canada - barring some recent tasteless comments from her leaders, she has always been a fine neighbor and trading partner. I just can't understand how a country's citizens could allow themselves to be held down and exploited by Socialism. What is your take on it, Aperson?

[Aperson]

No problems, I'm biased as well (obviously).

In any event, it depends on how its set up. If you get support whether or not you do anything, its going to fail alot faster than if the goverment requires the people to work/take classes in order to recieve aid. Granted, I believe that a hybrid between socilism and captilism is best: The captilist part should be rather obvious in its function, while the socilist part deals with essential (army, healthcare, fire and police etc.) as well as are the ones who pay the people to do studies that have to deal with the countries health (to prevent academic dishonesty resulting from bribes).

[Soback]

Socialism is an abomination. It's by defenition, like Jag said, a PARASITIC form of government, literally. It feeds off of those who produce, and gives that wealth to those who do not. It's legal slavery of the productive and inventive people. No sane person would give up the product of their mind or of their skill for free, NONE. Only a self destructive fool would.

There IS no co-existence between socialism and capitalism. The "co-existence" can be likened to that of a cancer and it's host, because socialism destroys the wealth capitalism creates. REAL Co-existence is when a host and another COMPLEMENT each other, socialism DOES NOT complement capitalism, it EATS at it, dependent upon it's wealth. Think about the following quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Does that sound good to you? If you worked all day, bought some food for your family, and stocked up for the week, and there's a bunch of lazy scum down the street who think they are above sweeping floors and washing toilets to put food on the table, and are entitled to your food because their need is greater then yours, does that sound fair? Well, that's what socialism is, and depending on your answer, it's what you represent.

But in any case, the BEST thing you can do for yourself Aperson, and I mean THE BEST thing in this world, is go read Atlas Shrugged. It's an interesting book, has nothing to do with politics or anything else, it's just a story, and an interesting one at that. And even although it's fiction, the events described LITERALLY happened in Russia. It's like history, but the same events are happening NOW in US, and as you know, there's a saying "History repeats itself" and "Those who don't know history are dooomed to repeat it's mistakes". So read that book, and decide for yourself. Maybe we should even start a thread about it, and people can debate about what's presented in that book. But that's for another day, everything has it's time.

[Aperson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

No sane person would give up the product of their mind or of their skill for free, NONE. Only a self destructive fool would.

---

Um, I hope you don't also mean volenteerly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

There IS no co-existence between socialism and capitalism. The "co-existence" can be likened to that of a cancer and it's host, because socialism destroys the wealth capitalism creates. REAL Co-existence is when a host and another COMPLEMENT each other, socialism DOES NOT complement capitalism, it EATS at it, dependent upon it's wealth.

---

The problem is, that with captilism, there is greater pressure for scientists and researchers fudge results to better fit what their employer wants. This is particulary prevelant in the pharmaceutical at the moment. Hence why I believe that the goverment should be the ones funding the studies for the products when it reaches the human trial stages. I also consider this a socialistic practise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

The BEST thing you can do for yourself Aperson, and I mean THE BEST thing in this world, is go read Atlas Shrugged. It's an interesting book, has nothing to do with politics or anything else, it's just a story, and an interesting one at that. And even although it's fiction, the events described LITERALLY happened in Russia. It's like history, but the same events are happening NOW in US, and as you know, there's a saying "History repeats itself" and "Those who don't know history are dooomed to repeat it's mistakes". So read that book, and decide for yourself. Maybe we should even start a thread about it, and people can debate about what's presented in that book. But that's for later.

---

I'll try to find the book. But I seriously doubt its the best thing in the world for me.

[Soback]

If scientists fudge results, and put out an unsafe drug, not only will the company end up going out of bussiness, but the criminal charges, jail time and even possibly death sentences will surely prevent fudging.

When government handles research, messes up, or plays favorites with a pharm company, and of course the corruption in socialistic situation like this is not even a theoretical possiblity, but full blown reality. Who would be responsible? When was the last time you've seen a government official accountable, sentenced to death or jail time for gross incompetence or corruption? And why would the rest of the population pick up the tab for lawsuits that would follow for harm and wrongful death those corrupt government officials and scients would cause? Hmmm....

You do know that Enrons top guy shot himself? You do know that they went to jail? If a pharm company pulled a stunt like that and thousands of people died, I wouldn't be surprised if death sentences were handed out to corporate scientists and their bosses that pressured them.

In corporate world, there's always accountability. Accountability to investors, to other employees, to the companys well being, and of course criminal repricussions.

Government entities however, 90% of the time are held immune. You do know if your kid gets hurt on a field trip at public school, you can't charge the school, even if those who were supposed to chaperone failed at their jobs (doesn't work the same way at private school, they are held accountable). Other government employees and entities have the immunity too. I don't remember what the law is called, but it's there. Learn something every day. That's why government workers are usually bottom feeders, they need neither the drive, nor be competent to succeed in their enviroment as their jobs are secure no matter their performance, they are very rarely held accountable. Perfect example is DMV, and that's just one layer of this trillion layer of beurocratic mess.

Anyhow, government however, nobody would be accountable, and the whole thing would be swept under the rug with officials stepping down, and that's where it would end.

[ 10-29-2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Soback]

Here you go. I looked it up. The law is called Sovereign Immunity .

"Sovereign immunity springs from the English common law concepts that (1) the "King can do no wrong" (from the days it was believed that kings ruled by divine right and that all rights flowed from the sovereign) and (2) that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Despite widespread criticism by legal scholars the doctrine retains a substantial degree of viability in American law based on the second "prong."

---Governemtn accountability. ROFL, there is no such thing.

"Sovereign immunity at the Federal level is particularly indefensible since "We the People," who ordained and established these United States and created the Federal "sovereign," did not see fit to cloak "our sovereign" with immunity for its actions. However the doctrine has been judicially recognized these past 200 years, planted in dictum by Chief Justice Jay in Chisolm v. Georgia [2 Dall. (2 US) 419 (1793)], fertilized in dictum by Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia [6 Wheat. (19 US) 264 (1821)], and germinating in Clarke v. United States [8 Pet. (19 US) 436 (1834)]. There is no constitutional basis for sovereign immunity, it is purely and simply a judge-made legal anachronism."

---And that's why we need to hold judges accountable. To take the power from them, and give it back to us the people. To stop this rule of corrupt black robes.

Here's more

"Why do IRS agents get away with so many violations of due process with immunity? The answer is that they are protected from prosecution by our federal courts under the contemporary doctrine of ÔÇ£sovereign immunityÔÇØ. As you can tell by the quote above from the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1879, support for sovereign immunity was not always endorsed by the courts. As these courts have become corrupted over the years in the process of expanding and upholding the income very tax that pays their salaries, the corrupt black-robed lawyers in these courts have had to contradict historical precedent by protecting especially those who enforce and administer the income tax from personal liability for criminal wrongdoing and lawlessness. Below is an explanation of how agents of the government are insulated and protected from legal liability for wrongdoing:"

"3. The U.S. supreme Court has upheld the notion that persons acting as agents for the U.S. government have at least a limited immunity from prosecution because of illegal, unethical, or questionable acts they commit while on duty. This is called official immunity. As we talked about in section 11.16 entitled ÔÇ£How the Federal Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition: Judicial Arrogance and Bias Against the Right to PetitionÔÇØ, the federal judiciary has also for all intents and purposes destroyed our right to petition the government for redress of grievances and wrongs committed either by agents working for the government or by the government itself. One also cannot sue the U.S. government without their consent, and this is called judicial immunity or sovereign immunity. Why would they give their consent if you sued them for wrongful taking of federal income taxes? All of these factors conspire to make it very difficult if not impossible for the average sovereign Citizen of the several states to protect his/her constitutional rights."

---Now, tell me if corporations are judged by the same standards?

Knowledge is Power, Aperson.

[Soback]

And read THIS . It will make you sick.

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

Socialism is an abomination. It's by defenition, like Jag said, a PARASITIC form of government, literally. It feeds off of those who produce, and gives that wealth to those who do not.

---

That's not really too far of the mark of Capitalism huh? I can point to an American worker and tell you how much he's produced, and at the same time point to a CEO and tell you how much he hasn't.

Capitalism is parasitic by it's very nature. Hell, society itself is parasitic, so you guys might want to choose a better analogy.

I'm not against Capitalism and profit, I'm against rape.

[Soback]

That CEO is who RUNS the company. You think you can do his job? You wouldn't last a day.

An inventor that invents a product, and then creates a company around it. He HAS earned it.

Even a monkey can do manual labor, but can it invent a vacuum? Design a plane? Plan the companys future?

In 1700s if you wanted milk, you had to go into the barn and milk the cow yourself. Now, thanks to the guy that invented automatic milkers, and the whole process, not only can you get enjoy milk anyday, but it costs you under $2.00 instead of $20.00 as would be the case without automation.

You think CEO's sit there with their legs up on the table? Then you are not even half as smart as I think. Not only do I KNOW some CEO's, I saw their schedule and some of their work. It would take months if not years just to get into the flow of the things they do when they run a billion dollar company, let alone replace them.

That's what happened in Russia during the communist revolution. All the private bussinesses were "liberated", and CEOs given a salary that matched their common labor. CEO's left, companies colapsed, and the other CEO's they replaced them with were corrupt, incompetent idiots (just like any other government employee) that let the company "run" itself, with less than 40% efficiency, and skimmed off the top with their corrupt deals between other CEO's, since everyone got paid the same (hey, you want a car, all you gotta do is pick up the phone and call your buddy who's the head of a car plant, you however have to be the head of a furniture plant, if you are a common worker, take the bus or walk).

I lived that Grizzle, and I KNOW what I am talking about, I felt it on my own skin. In US I am on my 3rd car and my 3rd motorcycle, I'm a pilot, and I earn my living, I would do even better if I didn't have to feed my neighbor, put his kids through school, and pay for his section 8 housing, I worked for everything I have. So don't try to BS me that people under capitalism are being fed upon by CEO's or corporations, the only ones they are getting leeched by, is liberals and their bottom feeding scum.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

Socialism is an abomination. It's by defenition, like Jag said, a PARASITIC form of government, literally. It feeds off of those who produce, and gives that wealth to those who do not.

---

That's not really too far of the mark of Capitalism huh? I can point to an American worker and tell you how much he's produced, and at the same time point to a CEO and tell you how much he hasn't.

Capitalism is parasitic by it's very nature. Hell, society itself is parasitic, so you guys might want to choose a better analogy.

I'm not against Capitalism and profit, I'm against rape.

---

Capitalism is parasitic?

Wow, I can't even fathom where that came from....

The CEO keeps the company in the black, if the CEO does not do HIS job, which is in fact one of the MOST important in the company, then the workers on the floors would not have jobs.

The workers on the floor produce the product, but the CEO is the one that keep those products selling, and keeps those people working.

The MORE people that your job touches and effects, the more money you should make, the CEO's job and functions effect EVERYONE within the company, therefore, the CEO should be the highest payed person within the company.

It's NOT rape, it's the way to keep a CEO that keeps the company successful so that those workers have jobs...

[Grizzle]

How many times have we seen the scenario where a CEO runs a company into the ground and still walks away with a buttload of cash. Yeah, he may lose his job but that means nothing after he's milked it for all it's worth. I know, I've worked for companies where this is exactly what happened.

And my rape reference was directed at the oil companies. There is fair market value and then there is price gouging, you can't tell me you believe that record profits for all the oil companies over the last quarter indicates fair market practices.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

How many times have we seen the scenario where a CEO runs a company into the ground and still walks away with a buttload of cash. Yeah, he may lose his job but that means nothing after he's milked it for all it's worth. I know, I've worked for companies where this is exactly what happened.

And my rape reference was directed at the oil companies. There is fair market value and then there is price gouging, you can't tell me you believe that record profits for all the oil companies over the last quarter indicates fair market practices.

---

This is a capitalist society buddy, there is good and there is bad, MOSTLY good, and the economy grows and grows and grows when it is reasonably unfettered with government BS.

And the fact is, that it coasts the same to pump and process oil, no matter WHAT the price is, the oil companies do NOT set the price for a barrel of oil, the commodities market does.

When demand goes up, and the supply goes down, PRICE goes up, yeah, the oil companies made a mint, and SO DID THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.

They do not set the price, they just try to keep their production costs down, they succeeded, VERY WELL...

[Soback]

You know what. I've been thinking, and had an epiphany.

Lets say you find some uncivilized bushman, bring him into civilized world, give him tools to build a house, give him a fishing stick to fish, ect.... He will still behave like a bushman, because he was NEVER TAUGHT how to use the things he was given. He was only given them and expected to suceed. (that hillarious movie "Gods must be crazy" comes to mind, lol, the coke bottle)

That's where people like Grizzle come in, and his point of view. They were "GIVEN" capitalism, Republic, ect...They were never taught to USE capitalism and this form of government (just shows how our public schools are a failure, and nothing more than an indoctrination for socialists). That's why they are confused and think that the system is bad and faulty, because they can't understand it, and can't suceed in it.

Me, I have experienced both. Capitalism and socialism. And seeing how under capitalism I can ACHIEVE based on my potential, knowledge, skill, and in socialism I could not. Which system do you think I would pick?

Now think, which system would a guy pick, a guy that can't achieve under capitalism, the system where your own potential is your only ticket from rags to riches. Would he pick capitalism, or would he pick a system where he is told that no matter how bad of a failure he is, he will be alright, and maybe can even achieve something based on how corrupt he is willing to become. Because under Socialism, you just plain out WILL NOT achieve anything based on your own potential ALONE, you ride on others, you MUST be corrupt and caniving to suceed, and you can either couple it with potential, or just be corrupt, the only difference is how far you will go. WOW.

That's why all the complaining, and frustration. Because me, I made over 20% trading stocks this year. Instead of complaining about prices, I understand what capitalism is, and USE it based on my potential. I MAKE my own money, and risk losing it or profiting. Those who don't understand that they live in a free society with a free market, will of course become frustrated and start saying how horrible it is, because what they want is stability that's based on someone else picking up the slack and taking risks.

[Aperson]

Corporations often terminate a scietist's contract or even sue if the researcher points of flaws in the drug design. Also, virtually all researchers in the biomedical industry are payed by corporations, meaning an independant and unbiased study is extreamly difficult to find. Compounding this is the fact that studies don't have to be released publicly, so there is no way for a person to make their own opinion if they wanted to.

linky

Also, its mostly drugs that have practicly no benifit or have additional side-effects than other drugs on the market that get the pass. Not the ones that kill people. So the chance of getting sued is very small.

The only thing I found relating to sovereign immunity in Canada was relating to U.S. laws, the Canadian goverment using diplomatic immunity to protect Bush from getting criminaly charged while in Canada and stuff about forign boats. Also, I confirmed that goverment website searches suck.

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

That's where people like Grizzle come in, and his point of view. They were "GIVEN" capitalism, Republic, ect...They were never taught to USE capitalism and this form of government (just shows how our public schools are a failure, and nothing more than an indoctrination for socialists). That's why they are confused and think that the system is bad and faulty, because they can't understand it, and can't suceed in it.

---

WRONG.

Maybe you grew up near Chernobyl and developed the ability to read minds, I don't know, but let's do an experiment. How many fingers am I holding up in my mind right now?

Interesting...

[Darkling]

I remember when I first got into the Computer Business. I used to buy parts for around $500.00, assemble everything and sell the computer installed for $2000.00. Is that considered "Excess" Profits? Probably. However, here's how the free market works. Everyone else, not just me, saw how profitable it was, prompting THOUSANDS of companies to get into the business. Today you could buy a computer 1000X more powerfull for only $500.00 or less (emachinesm, Dell). The point is, when there is very little Regulation, the free market will always correct an imbalance, and make the industry more efficient. Since excess regulation takes people out of the business, you have less competition, which results in higher prices. If you want to see gas and oil prices come down, you need to think of ways to reduce regulation, not increase it.

Think of it this way, if there was practically zero regulation in this industry right now, with high profits to be had, how many new entrants would we get into this industry? Eventually the new entrants into the industry would overwhelm the current supply with Excess inventory. Excess Inventory would then have to be sold at a markdown from one or more of the new entrants, or old timers, resulting in a price war. The price war would result in cost cutting, increased efficiencies and lower prices accross the board. Eventually the least efficient of these would be driven out of the business.

Look at what happened in the late 70's with the first oil crisis, BEFORE there were excessive regulations on the industry. EVERYONE got into the Oil and Gas exploration business, leading to thousands of new discoveries. EVERYONE got into the Drilling Business resulting in excess supply of oil. EVERYONE got into the Oil Tanker Business resulting in a MASSIVE Oil Glut that resulted in Tankers sitting at the docks with no where to Unload. EVERYONE got into the Oil Storage Business resulting in the complete collapse of oil prices with supply EVERYWHERE and not enough buyers. Next EVERYONE got into the Gas Refinery business to take advantage of the spread in collapsing oil prices and high gas prices. Eventually the massively excess capacity resulted in the complete collapse of Gas prices in the early 80's that lasted for almost 20 years! The whole cycle might start all over again, but I'm afraid that with all the Excess regulation in the industry, this time we'll be stuck with the current players and the current high prices.

[Grizzle]

I don't think anyone is against profit. The issue is that the recent profits by the gasoline giants seem a bit exorbitant considering the price increases were explained as being due to the increase in oil costs and the temporary loss of some refineries.

The profit glut indicates the price increases went far beyond what was necessary as a result of these factors, and since oil/gasoline is a necessity in a modern world it has greater negative impact on the economy. The story would be totally different if this were a lesser commodity.

One can argue that it's capitalism at it's best all they want, but the reality is, oil and energy are not far removed from such necessities as food and clothing.

I haven't heard any new calls for regulation, but I wonder why given these new profits the price of gas hasn't bottomed out yet? Where are the huge price rollbacks in light of these record profits and not so evident shortages?

I think we'll see more and more politicians calling for actions to be taken similar to what is expressed in the last link I provided. In part because they realize there will be many people adversely affected by the additional cost who will be less likely to vote for them next time around. But mostly because it's going to be real hard to explain to some folks why they have to pay so much more when the oil industries are lining their pockets with excessive profits.

[Soback]

What excessive profits? After all these posts you STILL don't understand what capitalism is.

Go BUY STOCK. Go INVEST. Trade. Work. Profit. Go buy oil industrys stock and STOP COMPLAINING.

My post above stands. You have been given capitalism, and your schooling failed you completlhy and utterly.

And if you really want to know the truth about liberals point of view. Learn how you are being used by the top richest liberals in US. Kennedys paid 100,000+ thousand on 500 MILLION inheritance. You know why those rich liberals are pushing so hard for taxation for the rich and wellfare for the poor. Because they are beyond rich, and others rising up to their level or anywhere near it, is a threat to their political power and to their way of life. They need to control exactly how rich you can get. So their latest scam is 60% inheritance tax. Read a book called "Do as I say, not as I do" and see how the corrupt liberal billionaires are paying less than 200,000 in taxes, while the rest of the "rich" (by your standsards) pay 80% of taxes in US.

Socialism is what is raping this country, forcing people to move their assets overseas, hide them from socialists that think anyone who has earned more than they did, is not entitled to keep his earnings. How powerful would this country be again if we went back to our capitalistic roots? We would have NO national debt, we would be the true Novus Ordo Seclorum.

So stop with this excess profits, and go make money like a capitalist, instead of complaining like a socialist.

[Grizzle]

How do you know I don't have an expansive stock portfolio Soback? Reading my mind again? You don't know Jack about me, all I can say again is that you assume far too much and far too often.

Just because I voice my disagreement with what I consider to be excessive practices does not mean I don't understand those same practices. I can hold multiple opposing thoughts in my head at the same time.

Ever hear the term business ethics in all your learned years? Or did you just skip that part?

I happen to do very well for myself, money and my ability to make it has never been an issue, but that doesn't prevent me from voicing my opinion when I see what I consider corrupt financial/business practices.

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

I don't think anyone is against profit. The issue is that the recent profits by the gasoline giants seem a bit exorbitant considering the price increases were explained as being due to the increase in oil costs and the temporary loss of some refineries.

.... when the oil industries are lining their pockets with excessive profits.

---

Obviously you JUST DON'T GET IT. I WANT the Oil and Gas industry to have Exorbitant Profits, Why you ask, because it will promt new players to enter the field. New Players entering the field will start the whole cycle all over (re-read my last post)

Your problem is that you see only the short term benefits of limiting their profits, whereas I see the long term benefits of increased market competition.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

How do you know I don't have an expansive stock portfolio Soback? Reading my mind again? You don't know Jack about me, all I can say

again

is that you assume far too much and far too often.

Just because I voice my disagreement with what I consider to be excessive practices does not mean I don't understand those same practices. I can hold multiple opposing thoughts in my head at the same time.

Ever hear the term

business ethics

in all your learned years? Or did you just skip that part?

I happen to do very well for myself, money and my ability to make it has never been an issue, but that doesn't prevent me from voicing my opinion when I see what I consider corrupt financial/business practices.

---

For the first paragraph, I will just dismiss it completly. I don't need to read someone's mind, because what's coming out of their mouth speaks for them.

Second. "I can hold multiple opposing thoughts in my head at the same time." Do I really need to say anything? I will let people draw their own conclusions from your post. Just wanted to point out that sentence though.

Third. Bussiness ethics, is to MAKE MONEY. It's called FREE MARKET. They are not hiring thugs, to break anyones knee caps. They are charging prices, that you as a consumer free to pay or to refuse their product.

Fourth and last paragraph. If you are making money, and at the same time trashing the capitalistic system that is enabling you to make that money. What does it make you then? And the bigger question is, WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT MAKING MONEY, LISTEN TO YOU, because obviously, it would make no sence for them to listen to a guy who flipps off capitalism with his left hand, and trashes it out of the left side of his mouth, while counting the money with the right hand and making deals with the right side of his mouth. Those people would be better off getting an education into the workings of economics and joining the capitalistic system not as cannon fodder for the left, but as equals in bussiness and deals with the right.

Conclusion? After re-reading this thread again, and with you finally making the final contradictin in your last post, my conclusion would be just a personal opinion, because obviously it seems that even you know how capitalism is supposed to work, and you obviously like the money that comes from it, as to your agenda of trashing it, that's between you and those "multiple opposing thoughts in my head at the same time."

No puns or insults intended. Just saying it like it is, from your own post.

However, quoting Atlas Shrugged. "There are no contradictions. If you arrived at one, then check your premises" It would help build character and conviction if a man has NO opposing thoughts, but considers ideas, checks them against themselfs and picks the RIGHT one for himself out of the lot. Be it even the wrong one in the ultimate outcome, at least it can still be said about that man that he is a man of character and conviction, and if he was wrong he will learn. And that the life he lives is HIS OWN.

[ 11-04-2005, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Grizzle]

Darkling, that's hardly the trend for the oil industry. Over the last several years the trend has been towards consolidation through multiple mergers. Market competition hasn't been and likely won't be an issue in the oil industry. We're headed towards monopolies, which make it even harder for startups.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/08/oilmergersrpt.htm

The other problem is that they have not been investing those profits in improving the infrastructure. I posted a link about that somewhere earlier in this thread.

Just watch and wait, this issue will become greater as time goes by and elections get closer.

[Soback]

Quite the contrary Grizzle. The dividens from the oil companies are down. They are paying HIGHER fees to the government because of all the regulation and environmental studies and lawsuits, AND they are investing MORE in infrastructure.

[Grizzle]

Once again Soback we are simply on opposite sides of the fence on this one. To each his own eh?

As for why I might speak poorly of a system that has provided me with those things I desire in life, well there are lots of them, too many to list here. But I do realize no system is perfect and if my pointing out it's occasional flaws comes as a shock to you then you might want to examine your own convictions first.

"The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves." - Oscar Wilde