![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "gatt" wrote:
I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation industries, etc.) -c JEEEEEEEPPPPPERS!!! Don't EVER say that out loud! You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, and then say that they might run oil companies at a lower cost??? What's in your water? (OK, insert half a smiley here....) We know how thick the paperwork and regs books are just to fly a little ol' plane from point A to point B. I can't imaigine how bad the oil business would be if the job-justifying feds started running it. jeez... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:56:52 -0700, wrote:
You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, Homeland Security. Mail. Welfare. Medicare. Sometimes it seems that the only thing the government does well is invading countries, though occupying them seems beyond its capacity also. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:56:52 -0700, wrote: You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, Homeland Security. Mail. Welfare. Medicare. Coe out west and add "water" to that list. Sometimes it seems that the only thing the government does well is invading countries, though occupying them seems beyond its capacity also. That's their #1 job. They did pretty good in the past before they became "sensitive". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "gatt" wrote: I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation industries, etc.) -c JEEEEEEEPPPPPERS!!! Don't EVER say that out loud! You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, and then say that they might run oil companies at a lower cost??? What's in your water? (OK, insert half a smiley here....) We know how thick the paperwork and regs books are just to fly a little ol' plane from point A to point B. I can't imaigine how bad the oil business would be if the job-justifying feds started running it. Oh, I agree that they'd turn it into a bureaucracy. That's my point; it would probably STILL be cheaper to consumer because even after all of the red tape, we'd not be lining the pockets of price-rigging sheiks, tycoons billionairres. -c |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You can tell high fuel prices ... | john smith | Piloting | 0 | August 17th 06 07:09 PM |
High fuel prices = buyer's market? | Greg Copeland[_1_] | Owning | 22 | August 7th 06 11:15 AM |
IVO pireps wanted.. high performance/high speed... | Dave S | Home Built | 8 | June 2nd 04 04:12 PM |
'Chicken-Hawk' argument doesn't fly | Vaughn | Military Aviation | 1 | February 24th 04 10:47 PM |
'Chicken-Hawk' argument doesn't fly | Vaughn | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 24th 04 11:18 AM |