Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:I wish the North wouldn't have even started the Civil War. Like, seriously. We would be so better off without states from Texas to Georgia. I would let them secede, no, I encourage them to secede.

but i plan to eventually move to the south,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVeSKwM--1M&hd=1

I am proud to be an American, but I won't bow to the government. Also, there are citizens of America I'm not proud of either

Actually i would not mind if the South Succeeded, The Majority of North and Pacific bordering states are falling to Socialism.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I am proud to be an American, but I won't bow to the government. Also, there are citizens of America I'm not proud of either

Obama and the welfare slackers you mean? that saying not everyone on welfare are slackers but some are.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Actually i would not mind if the South Succeeded, The Majority of North and Pacific bordering states are falling to Socialism.

Which saddens me

I did a thing.

http://imgur.com/FaSWm9R

On-topic:

I find nationalism and patriotism have been pretty distorted lately. I'm proud to be American, but not in the least bit proud of what our "representatives" are doing.

Also, those states that want to secede should go ahead and do that. Why should we care? If anything, we should officially support their movement, since we started out the same way.

I am a northerner and consider all of you to be traitors.

The confederate club is that way -------------->

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I am a northerner and consider all of you to be traitors.

The confederate club is that way -------------->

Yeah seriously. Go take your plantations and stupid food and stupid accents and racism elsewhere

The North is too Socialist leaning.......... I plan on moving to Texas or South Carolina when i can.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I am a northerner and consider all of you to be traitors.

The confederate club is that way -------------->

That's harsh, no one supports slavery

I plan to stay in Indiana, we are in the black.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:That's harsh, no one supports slavery

Communal does that is why he wants all workers to be ruled by a Vanguard party.

California for the win!

The Amarican Empire wrote:The North is too Socialist leaning.......... I plan on moving to Texas or South Carolina when i can.

Yet it still is fairly right wing, and lacks all the southern democrats, racists, and homophobes.

New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Mass. etc. are all considerably socially libertarian. Even California is not as libertarian (full of hate speech advocates).

The Amarican Empire wrote:The North is too Socialist leaning.......... I plan on moving to Texas or South Carolina when i can.

On a different note, Texas won't be red too much longer

The Amarican Empire wrote:The North is too Socialist leaning.......... I plan on moving to Texas or South Carolina when i can.

Just the states with big cities mostly, like Cali, New York, and Illinois. But at least those states still have class. The worst racism we have up here is canadian jokes about their maple syrup and maple leafs.

Post self-deleted by Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The North is too Socialist leaning.......... I plan on moving to Texas or South Carolina when i can.

On a different note, Texas won't be red too much longer

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Just the states with big cities mostly, like Cali, New York, and Illinois. But at least those states still have class. The worst racism we have up here is canadian jokes about their maple syrup and maple leafs.

Michigan is not too Socialist, i hope that Michigan turns red.

Liberosia wrote:California for the win!

Can't tell if you're serious or not

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Can't tell if you're serious or not

I live there

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Can't tell if you're serious or not

California should be split. there is alot of Right wingers in Rural California that have almost no say because of LA and other large cities.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Actually i would not mind if the South Succeeded, The Majority of North and Pacific bordering states are falling to Socialism.

You call that Socialism?! That is liberalism. Its when you have extensive public services, but keep the capitalist economics. Do not compare American liberalism with socialism.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The North is too Socialist leaning.......... I plan on moving to Texas or South Carolina when i can.

I live in the south and I hate it. If you like "sexuality conversion therapy", the abusing of immigrants, and gutted social services then come here. Make sure your catholic or protestant only, don't want to be a heathen.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Michigan is not too Socialist, i hope that Michigan turns red.

They're pretty borderline.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:On a different note, Texas won't be red too much longer

I seriously doubt that, but let's hear your reasoning, I'm interested?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Michigan is not too Socialist, i hope that Michigan turns red.

u r funny

The Amarican Empire wrote:Michigan is not too Socialist, i hope that Michigan turns red.

I say this, I don't think red or blue is the answer

Communal Militia wrote:You call that Socialism?! That is liberalism. Its when you have extensive public services, but keep the capitalist economics. Do not compare American liberalism with socialism. I live in the south and I hate it. If you like "sexuality conversion therapy", the abusing of immigrants, and gutted social services then come here. Make sure your catholic or protestant only, don't want to be a heathen.

I will come there!

Communal lets switch, I can have the Greatest state in the Union and you can have Michigan

I want a state to turn yellow, please.

Communal Militia wrote:You call that Socialism?! That is liberalism. Its when you have extensive public services, but keep the capitalist economics. Do not compare American liberalism with socialism. I live in the south and I hate it. If you like "sexuality conversion therapy", the abusing of immigrants, and gutted social services then come here. Make sure your catholic or protestant only, don't want to be a heathen.

Yeah that's what I'm saying they aren't even socialist. I am probably moving to Manhattan some day, and considering I'm generally liberal I'm alright with that.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I say this, I don't think red or blue is the answer

Yellow!(or whatever the libertarian party color is)

Republican: Red

Democrat: Blue

Libertarian: Yellow

Green: Obvious

The Amarican Empire wrote:Communal lets switch, I can have the Greatest state in the Union and you can have Michigan

Which state is that?

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:They're pretty borderline.

I seriously doubt that, but let's hear your reasoning, I'm interested?

With the major Hispanic population coming to Texas, they traditionally vote democrat. With a very liberal media, they project republicans will deport them or take away their rights. Liberal media paints every republican as a racist against every ethnicity, and I think the shift will cause the majority of Texas to end up blue. I could be wrong, but that's my logic

I hope this place rots. They are all ignorant and all have the same views on everything. A bunch of loud mouthed people here that aren't educated or smart.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I will come there!

Horrible place to live if your not white, Christian, or straight. Also, our oil won't last forever. Keep that in mind.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Texas!

*begins waving Georgian flag in protest*

but i am white,Christian and Straightish

Right-Winged Nation wrote:With the major Hispanic population coming to Texas, they traditionally vote democrat. With a very liberal media, they project republicans will deport them or take away their rights. Liberal media paints every republican as a racist against every ethnicity, and I think the shift will cause the majority of Texas to end up blue. I could be wrong, but that's my logic

Your right. Fox news has become communist.

States not in debt, Indiana, louisiana, and Texas. Also Florida basically has no state taxes. It's either Indiana or Florida for me.

Communal Militia wrote:Your right. Fox news has become communist.

I assume sarcasm.

at least we are not apart of Mother Britannia any more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg&hd=1

Communal Militia wrote:I hope this place rots. They are all ignorant and all have the same views on everything. A bunch of loud mouthed people here that aren't educated or smart.Horrible place to live if your not white, Christian, or straight. Also, our oil won't last forever. Keep that in mind.

So you don't care about the proletariat? Elitist, much?

I dedicate this to of lack thereof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGy2SbXTNE&hd=1

Republic Of Minerva wrote:So you don't care about the proletariat? Elitist, much?

If you know anything about communism, it takes the most advanced segment of the working class to being class consciousness to the proletariat. people need education about the world around them is all though. Can easily be accomplished by the systematics of vanguardist upbringing.

Communal Militia wrote:If you know anything about communism, it takes the most advanced segment of the working class to being class consciousness to the proletariat. people need education about the world around them is all though. Can easily be accomplished by the systematics of vanguardist upbringing.

Or let people find out the world around them is tough on their own.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Texas!

"The Greatest State in The Union" lol get out

Right-Winged Nation wrote:With the major Hispanic population coming to Texas, they traditionally vote democrat. With a very liberal media, they project republicans will deport them or take away their rights. Liberal media paints every republican as a racist against every ethnicity, and I think the shift will cause the majority of Texas to end up blue. I could be wrong, but that's my logic

That actually makes sense, never thought of it that way

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:"The Greatest State in The Union" lol get out

That actually makes sense, never thought of it that way

I hope I'm wrong, but it is a strong possibility

You were wrong about the media, but right about the transition to a blue state due to immigration.

Communal Militia wrote:If you know anything about communism, it takes the most advanced segment of the working class to being class consciousness to the proletariat. people need education about the world around them is all though. Can easily be accomplished by the systematics of vanguardist upbringing.

I'm of the opinion that no matter how much education you have, you can't stomp out bigotry. Some of the Internet Nazis I met sounded quite intelligent than the brutish neo-nazi stereotype. Or is this all a masquerade?

Communal Militia wrote:You were wrong about the media, but right about the transition to a blue state due to immigration.

We have no reliable news anymore, it's either slanted to the right or to the left, we have no truth.

Your also not reaching out to the very same people who could grant you what you desire.

Immigration is only bad because of the American corporate advancements made in Mexico. It makes millions exempt from the Mexican economy. Why is it that the immigration rates so high now more than ever?

Communal Militia wrote:Immigration is only bad because of the American corporate advancements made in Mexico. It makes millions exempt from the Mexican economy. Why is it that the immigration rates so high now more than ever?

For better economic opportunity available in America that is not available in mexico

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Your also not reaching out to the very same people who could grant you what you desire.

True

Right-Winged Nation wrote:We have no reliable news anymore, it's either slanted to the right or to the left, we have no truth.

Simple. Make a publically funded news service, like the U.K, Australia and others. Best news coverage, unbiased can't lean on any side or it will lose legitimacy. NPR should get more funding.

Communal Militia wrote:Simple. Make a publically funded news service, like the U.K, Australia and others. Best news coverage, unbiased can't lean on any side or it will lose legitimacy. NPR should get more funding.

You do realize that those networks would be biased to the status quo of the government...

Communal Militia wrote:Simple. Make a publically funded news service, like the U.K, Australia and others. Best news coverage, unbiased can't lean on any side or it will lose legitimacy. NPR should get more funding.

The BBC for the UK and what is it for Australia?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You do realize that those networks would be biased to the status quo of the government...

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You do realize that those networks would be biased to the status quo of the government...

Would you think people would watch it if it was really like that? I implore you to visit BBC or NPR.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You do realize that those networks would be biased to the status quo of the government...

He's right communal

So much Reagan bashing.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=300544

Viritica wrote:So much Reagan bashing.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=300544

Why reagan bashing?

Communal Militia wrote:Would you think people would watch it if it was really like that? I implore you to visit BBC or NPR.

The same reason that i feel like people would watch FOX - they like to hear nonsense and propaganda, or are perfectly fine in trusting some massive entity with considerable priorities and agendas for their newsfeed.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The same reason that i feel like people would watch FOX - they like to hear nonsense and propaganda, or are perfectly fine in trusting some massive entity with considerable priorities and agendas for their newsfeed.

As well as CNN and MSNBC

The Amarican Empire wrote:I dedicate this to of lack thereof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGy2SbXTNE&hd=1

That literally hurt my head

I prefer private international sources, like Al Jazeera (although it is controlled by a public entity, it functions like a charter school.) Least biased, best quality news.

Communal Militia wrote:Simple. Make a publically funded news service, like the U.K, Australia and others. Best news coverage, unbiased can't lean on any side or it will lose legitimacy. NPR should get more funding.

I've got some serious issues with that. Aside from it being funded by theft, a nationalized news serious can easily function as a propaganda department for the state. This can be seen in all sorts of middle eastern and Asian countries. Even in the west (sort of)RT is a clear proponent of Russian policies regardless of the facts. Press ought to serve as a watchdog of the state, not a lapdog.

Lack There Of wrote:That literally hurt my head

Wow, I shake my head

Lack There Of wrote:I've got some serious issues with that. Aside from it being funded by theft, a nationalized news serious can easily function as a propaganda department for the state. This can be seen in all sorts of middle eastern and Asian countries. Even in the west (sort of)RT is a clear proponent of Russian policies regardless of the facts. Press ought to serve as a watchdog of the state, not a lapdog.

Really? Do you really think the U.S government could get away with that? I think it is offendable when corporate media is considered unbiased by the american populace. The reason why we are so hated is because most americans are ignorant, blindly prideful, bitterly individualistic, and nationalistic that they think America is heaven on earth and that we need to keep the 200 year old system forever. Maybe if we took a system into consideration that fitted the actual needs of the people, maybe just maybe we wouldn't be so damn backwards. It is people that are so individualistic that they won't accept outside help with anything. It is people who believe survival of the fittest is a justice system that makes this country socially backwards.

It is people and mother nature over profits. Wealth is an object. Earth can be used to benefit man and I am fine with that but there comes a time when the market economy becomes so reliant on the disintegration of the planet, that there needs to be a serious reconsideration of the very definition of market and value. There needs to be a reconsideration when people are simply viewed as a commodity to be traded. We need change now and it isn't going to happen until people like you actually see how many people the system you put forth starve 18 people every minute, when you see the atmosphere being depleted, natural resources depleted, and people slaughtered- all because of money. Why not make a system not based on a piece of paper?

Communal Militia wrote:Really? Do you really think the U.S government could get away with that? I think it is offendable when corporate media is considered unbiased by the american populace. The reason why we are so hated is because most americans are ignorant, blindly prideful, bitterly individualistic, and nationalistic that they think America is heaven on earth and that we need to keep the 200 year old system forever. Maybe if we took a system into consideration that fitted the actual needs of the people, maybe just maybe we wouldn't be so damn backwards. It is people that are so individualistic that they won't accept outside help with anything. It is people who believe survival of the fittest is a justice system that makes this country socially backwards.

It is people and mother nature over profits. Wealth is an object. Earth can be used to benefit man and I am fine with that but there comes a time when the market economy becomes so reliant on the disintegration of the planet, that there needs to be a serious reconsideration of the very definition of market and value. There needs to be a reconsideration when people are simply viewed as a commodity to be traded. We need change now and it isn't going to happen until people like you actually see how many people the system you put forth starve 18 people every minute, when you see the atmosphere being depleted, natural resources depleted, and people slaughtered- all because of money. Why not make a system not based on a piece of paper?

I will respond to this currently and feel free to rebuttal afterwords, but be aware that I probably won't respond again until tomorrow(this whole dependency on sleep can really get in the way sometimes).

To address the initial point of state run media,

1) yes, the American government could get away something like that. The vast majority of the populace would eat it up. Look at the droves who came out to label snowden A traitor and even those upset by blanket survlience haven't archived real change even with the public fully aware of the dangers.

2) I did not mean to defend corporate media, nor do I think that was implied anywhere in my statement. I find the current state of American "journalism" to be degrading at best. Furthermore, the general public buying into the media ahold be evidence enough that a state run service could easily be corrupted.

3) I would argue there are a multitude of reasons the abstract of "America" is disliked around the world, general ignorance not being the least, however I would propose that the last century+ of American foreign policy would be the largest factor in attracting negative attention around the world.

3) I don't recall ever defending the system we have in place, nor desiring the current state of American affairs to contour forever. If anything, my views could not be farther from that.

4)I fail to see how individualism could contribute to a society's image around the world, nor why that perceived image would be of any real consequence. (Note this is where we start to tred off topic and start to grandstand)

5)in a true market society, not the corporatist nonsense we see today, companies couldn't get away with the environmental shniz they pull today. Think of how cooperate lobbying has limited the operating efficacy of consumer groups. Keep in mind that a voluntary society must be a knowledge society, and that a knowledgeable consumer base isn't going to spend money if a producer is harming them.

6)the only time people are viewed, in a literal sense, as a commodity is when the state gets involved.

7). I agree that the current system we have in place all over the world is flawed and leads to the deaths of millions each year, but I believe we disagree on why that is. While you hold that it is a market's misallocation of resources that produce global inequalities and suffering, I strongly disagree. Again, it is when the state gets involved that the grossest of crimes against humanity occur.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I prefer private international sources, like Al Jazeera (although it is controlled by a public entity, it functions like a charter school.) Least biased, best quality news.

I stopped going on Al-Jazeera, when they replaced Al-Jazeera English with Al-Jazeera America. I liked it more before. :(

I basically only go to Al-Arabiyya, Al-Bawaba, BBC, VICE, and Jihadology for news. Sometimes watch FOX, but they usually end up repulsing me.

Lol, I put number 3 twice.

For a RW example of seven I recommend this video

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/a-tale-of-two-countries-botswana-and-zimbabwe/

A bit lengthy, but a fascinating lecture regardless of political stripes.

I go to British Broadcasting Channel

Lack There Of wrote:I will respond to this currently and feel free to rebuttal afterwords, but be aware that I probably won't respond again until tomorrow(this whole dependency on sleep can really get in the way sometimes).

To address the initial point of state run media,

1) yes, the American government could get away something like that. The vast majority of the populace would eat it up. Look at the droves who came out to label snowden A traitor and even those upset by blanket survlience haven't archived real change even with the public fully aware of the dangers.

2) I did not mean to defend corporate media, nor do I think that was implied anywhere in my statement. I find the current state of American "journalism" to be degrading at best. Furthermore, the general public buying into the media ahold be evidence enough that a state run service could easily be corrupted.

3) I would argue there are a multitude of reasons the abstract of "America" is disliked around the world, general ignorance not being the least, however I would propose that the last century+ of American foreign policy would be the largest factor in attracting negative attention around the world.

3) I don't recall ever defending the system we have in place, nor desiring the current state of American affairs to contour forever. If anything, my views could not be farther from that.

4)I fail to see how individualism could contribute to a society's image around the world, nor why that perceived image would be of any real consequence. (Note this is where we start to tred off topic and start to grandstand)

5)in a true market society, not the corporatist nonsense we see today, companies couldn't get away with the environmental shniz they pull today. Think of how cooperate lobbying has limited the operating efficacy of consumer groups. Keep in mind that a voluntary society must be a knowledge society, and that a knowledgeable consumer base isn't going to spend money if a producer is harming them.

6)the only time people are viewed, in a literal sense, as a commodity is when the state gets involved.

7). I agree that the current system we have in place all over the world is flawed and leads to the deaths of millions each year, but I believe we disagree on why that is. While you hold that it is a market's misallocation of resources that produce global inequalities and suffering, I strongly disagree. Again, it is when the state gets involved that the grossest of crimes against humanity occur.

1) You can't make a public news service biased. It would make the entire point of providing an alternative to corporate media meaningless. Sure you could argue that it is possible, but I highly doubt that it would ever turn out as a full blown propaganda network.

2) BBC isn't out their preaching how great the United Kingdom is or chanting "God Save the Queen" in every commercial. Its unbiased and a much better alternative to American Corporate media.

3) I would agree with you on that one. Ignorance being second or third on the list.

4) What I meant by that is we are the most fiercely individualistic in the world. If you go to some where like Germany, it is a community of people, not just competition. I guess this doesn't really contribute to the negativity but still.

5) A "free market" isn't possible when there is this many people in the world. Sure, maybe it worked when there were about 1 billion people living world wide, but the "free market" will only misallocate resources even more so than before. I also doubt the likelihood of a free market being created ever again. Every country in the world has some regulation to a degree.

6) A bourgeois state maybe, but a state that is not focused on capital accumulation, no. We as communists, see people as contributors to society, individual workers, but united as one. Unity in execution

7) Capitalism regardless of what state produces such atrocities. Stalin was capitalist in some regards, although I believe his numbers were a bit miscalculated by the west. Russia's reports found that he may have been the result of any where from half a million to 2 million deaths. Still really bad but not as bad.

Greetings everyone. I am new here so whats is the general information I need to know about this region?

Communal Militia wrote:1) You can't make a public news service biased. It would make the entire point of providing an alternative to corporate media meaningless. Sure you could argue that it is possible, but I highly doubt that it would ever turn out as a full blown propaganda network.

2) BBC isn't out their preaching how great the United Kingdom is or chanting "God Save the Queen" in every commercial. Its unbiased and a much better alternative to American Corporate media.

3) I would agree with you on that one. Ignorance being second or third on the list.

4) What I meant by that is we are the most fiercely individualistic in the world. If you go to some where like Germany, it is a community of people, not just competition. I guess this doesn't really contribute to the negativity but still.

5) A "free market" isn't possible when there is this many people in the world. Sure, maybe it worked when there were about 1 billion people living world wide, but the "free market" will only misallocate resources even more so than before. I also doubt the likelihood of a free market being created ever again. Every country in the world has some regulation to a degree.

6) A bourgeois state maybe, but a state that is not focused on capital accumulation, no. We as communists, see people as contributors to society, individual workers, but united as one. Unity in execution

7) Capitalism regardless of what state produces such atrocities. Stalin was capitalist in some regards, although I believe his numbers were a bit miscalculated by the west. Russia's reports found that he may have been the result of any where from half a million to 2 million deaths. Still really bad but not as bad.

of course those evil Capitalists always change the facts and lie. A Communist could never do that.

The Amarican Empire wrote:of course those evil Capitalists always change the facts and lie. A Communist could never do that.

If you are referring to the comment I made about corporate media, then let me say this:

They have no allegiance but to themselves. They can put out complete rubbish and brand it as news and people would eat it up too.

If you instate a public news service, it would provide a service to that of people wanting to hear news, just news. They hold allegiance to the public, not their own interests. In that regard, a well funded "PBS" is in order to offer a more reliable, and unbiased network. And if people don't like it, they can go back to Fox news. Although, I highly doubt people would actually choose to do so.

sure, its not like the government would slip propaganda to trick the public or anything.

I would trust Corporate ran news stations over a government funded news station any day.

The only way I would support a larger pbs is if the states payed individually for it. If your state pays then you get that channel. State governments are not as mischievous as the federal government.

Transval-Land wrote:Greetings everyone. I am new here so whats is the general information I need to know about this region?

Hello! I'm the manager of Internal Affairs.

We are primarily Libertarian & conservative but will accept anyone of any ideology. However, Libertatem does have a strong background in fighting communism, fascism, and other forces of tyranny throughout nationstates. We've been quite successful at doing such too.

Up top in our world factbook entry, there is a plethora of links for you to explore. I encourage you to look over the regional laws, as our regional government is quite unlike any other on nationstates.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

Viritica wrote:So much Reagan bashing.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=300544

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Why reagan bashing?

He rolled over in his grave when CE walked in and has been whimpering since.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The only way I would support a larger pbs is if the states payed individually for it. If your state pays then you get that channel. State governments are not as mischievous as the federal government.

Not half as much. ;)

Muh Roads wrote:

He speaks the truth. Hi!

Communal Militia wrote:1) You can't make a public news service biased... bad.

I'm going to be real here for a second, I'm not sure if we're having a legit discussion, or if you're just trolling me hard.

Ya. You can make a public news service biased.......REAL BAD

Ankha wrote:Ya. You can make a public news service biased.......REAL BAD

[I]really really bad[/I]

Ankha wrote:Ya. You can make a public news service biased.......REAL BAD

Not even that, but the whole thing. I'm uncertain if we have wildly different perceptions of reality, or if communal is attempting to get a rise out of me.

Muh Roads wrote:[I]really really bad[/I]

Itacos granted. ;)

Lack There Of wrote:Not even that, but the whole thing. I'm uncertain if we have wildly different perceptions of reality, or if communal is attempting to get a rise out of me.

Likely both. Hes more than slightly dillisional.

Ankha wrote:Likely both. Hes more than slightly dillisional.

The gub mint took muh babies in Nam. That's why I'm libertarian.

Ankha wrote:Itacos granted. ;)

Woo breakfast

Ankha wrote:Itacos granted. ;)Likely both. Hes more than slightly dillisional.

Like we said before, Brain Damage

Muh Roads wrote:The gub mint took muh babies in Nam. That's why I'm libertarian.

Woo breakfast

what the heck?

On a different note, gas is now four dollars where I live, does anyone have it better or worse.

Ankha wrote:3.94 & 9/10

Yikes, well at least it's not four yet(sarcasm)

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Yikes, well at least it's not four yet(sarcasm)

Yet we still depend on OPEC, why?

The worst part is, where I live, is how awful the roads are. Pay through the nose on a freaking gas tax and get no results when it comes to mantinence. There is actually a face book hate page regarding the condition of the roads in my town. But the real kicker is that the city council approved a 1.2 million dollar road sign with the city's name on it to be constructed next to our interstate exit. This is real life

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Yikes, well at least it's not four yet(sarcasm)

Ya, but some places its less. Mobil and Sunoco charge almost 4, but Kwikfill is still at 3.69 and you can get five cents off per gallon. Thats good.

Ankha wrote:what the heck?

Who knows? The gubmint knows.

Ankha wrote:3.94 & 9/10

Same. Doesn't help that I drive a jeep. But i didn't buy it for gas mileage.

Muh Roads wrote:Who knows? The gubmint knows.

Same. Doesn't help that I drive a jeep. But i didn't buy it for gas mileage.

Whats the gubmint?

Hah. I drive a BMW, I like how it drives and it gets good milage. My Dad has a Mazda RX-7 from back when they were cool. Its insane. Really fun to drive, huge showy piece, but that gets gas milage like.....well the gas milage is like 12 mpg. The bmw is closer to 35-40.

Ankha wrote:Whats the gubmint?

Hah. I drive a BMW, I like how it drives and it gets good milage. My Dad has a Mazda RX-7 from back when they were cool. Its insane. Really fun to drive, huge showy piece, but that gets gas milage like.....well the gas milage is like 12 mpg. The bmw is closer to 35-40.

I drive a honda civic, it costs 40 dollars for a fill up.

Lack There Of wrote:The worst part is, where I live, is how awful the roads are. Pay through the nose on a freaking gas tax and get no results when it comes to mantinence. There is actually a face book hate page regarding the condition of the roads in my town. But the real kicker is that the city council approved a 1.2 million dollar road sign with the city's name on it to be constructed next to our interstate exit. This is real life

That's awful

I suppose drilling for our own oil and actually keeping it in America and building the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't do us any good. Oh, wait a minute...

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.