This place... Good grief...

[Stand and Fight]

Nothing but a bunch of naysayers on here lately. It's sickening.

[drm604]

1. In all respect,

I don't see what this would achieve. Everyone would still have to buy the gas at some point, so it would all come out the same profit-wise in the end.

Snopes has a good article on this. It's been tried before.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

[Stand and Fight]

2. ....

....

[Rosemary2205]

3. The only thing that works

is using less gas.

So everyone buys gas on May 14th or 16th instead. Same amount of gas, same amount of profit.

[Berry Cool]

4. For ONE DAY.

So then, everyone goes out the next day and buys the gas they didn't buy the day before. And this proves what?

Face it. One-day "gas-outs" and boycotts of particular companies are not going to solve the problem. There are only two solutions:

1. use alternative fuels

2. drive less. Yes, I said it. The thing no one who owns a motor vehicle wants to do. Drive less. Use less gas. (I know it is not an option that is workable for everyone, but it might be more workable for some people than they care to think.)

The truth hurts.

[BeFree]

9. Drive less

The other way is more, more, more. Drive more, use more, pollute more.
Its a matter of choice. Colbert could have chosen to go easy on the whole bunch tonight, but he didn't. He told the truth... so have you. Good for you BerryBush.

[anitar1]

13. I have been driving less

for the last 2 yrs. Started out cutting back and kept finding ways to cut back more. Not sure how I will cut more now but intend to try.It is amazing what one can do. I have never been super efficent, but am proud of myself for finally learning how. All those unnessary trips here and there, ect--all gone. Also a few friends are doing the same.If I could , would get rid of my car.

[drm604]

5. It's not naysaying.

We're just saying that efforts shouldn't be directed at things that won't work. I'm sorry, but wasting time and effort on futile actions doesn't achieve anything.

[omega minimo]

20. Like Censure and Impeachment? Like voting?

"I'm sorry, but wasting time and effort on futile actions doesn't achieve anything."

[drm604]

28. You didn't see the original post.

What the OP was proposing really was a waste of effort. It's not comparable to AT ALL to censure, impeachment, or voting. He or she was proposing that everyone not buy gas on May 15 and stated that this would hit the pocketbooks of the oil companies. The truth is it would not hurt the oil companies at all because people would still buy what they needed before or after that day.

On Edit: I fixed a minor spelling mistake (and that's all that I did!)

[omega minimo]

42. In fact it IS comparable: censure, impeachment, voting as "futile efforts"

and the reason that voters, Dems, DUers and Congress Dems use "wasted effort" and "futility" as excuses to not do the right thing. Why bother. This is why some people DON'T BOTHER VOTING. This is why, until this moment, there has not been enough pressure applied to hold this administration ACCOUNTABLE.

Sometimes action efforts send a message and that's whats important. It's pressure in the right direction. Doesn't happen overnight.

I agree (with the spirit of the deleted OP) that consumer movements have more potential power than most Dems seem to realize.

I respectfully disagree with those who are certain they can predict the future and know that "The truth is it would not hurt the oil companies at all because people would still buy what they needed before or after that day.

[leftofthedial]

6. Yes!!

I mean No!!

[Acebass]

7. I thought it was just me...thanks!...

could be a bunch of freeps in disguise...

[Rosemary2205]

8. Oh get real.

I'd love to find a way to beat big oil at their game with something as easy as boycotting gas on a certain day. Calling people freeps because they have learned from experience the only way to do it is to cut back on gas is just silly.

[Richard Steele]

10. I don't think AceBass saw the original post.

He seems to be interpreting the edited version
as relating to a few 'controversy' threads from suspect
posters...it kinda makes sense.

The 'freeper' comment didn't refer to anyone on this thread, IMHO.

[Acebass]

11. this was what I was refering to

If you were offended maybe your the problem...

Edited on Sun Apr-30-06 06:04 AM by Stand and Fight
Nothing but a bunch of naysayers on here lately. It's sickening.

[Richard Steele]

18. Yup, that's what I thought. I got it in one!

I'm really loving the fact that a DELETED SUBJECT
has taken on a life of it's own just because
of the way GD is tonight...

Living proof that context affects meaning...
and sometimes defines it completely.

[drm604]

26. I really don't like the way it was deleted and the heading changed.

It put our responses totally out of context and possibly caused some misunderstanding of what we were trying to do. If the OP didn't like what we were saying then he or she should have responded to it rather than removing the whole context.

[Acebass]

33. It would have save some hurt feelings...

I probably wouldn't have replied, if I'd seen what it was about...

[Acebass]

12. No you get real...

I saw no mention of big oil anywhere in here, till you brought it up...

[Rosemary2205]

17. Benefit of the doubt

I'll take your word for it since the OP was edited - Who knows, maybe you missed replies 1-4 also. :)

[Acebass]

31. I don't remember them being there when I replied...

I had no idea from the header that anyone said anything about petrol...

[Peter Frank]

14. Of course you're wrong...

No naysayer worth his salt would expect approval here. But I agree with your right to express your disapproval, even if I might disagree -- which I'm not confirming or denying that I do.

Am I saying "yes" to naysaying? Not necessarily, but I'm also not OK with blanket no's to yeah-saying.

(Mind fucking -- 101 {aka politics})

;)

[Peter Frank]

23. C'mon - Get the joke...

:)

[Gabi Hayes]

15. having missed the edits, I nominate this thread as most

inscrutable in recent memory

I realize there was some discussion of gas boycotts, but what else was going on?

should I care?

[drm604]

30. That was the whole subject, gas boycotts.

The OP proposed that everyone refrain from buying gas on May 15. A few of us pointed out the futility of doing that. The poster then completely changed the OP, including the heading.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Since it's obvious what the subject of this thread WAS...

(the 'Exxon-Mobil boycott' nonsense)--it's a bad idea, based on an extremely poor understanding of economics. Exxon-Mobil is a single company of dozens. A mass boycott of all Exxon=Mobil gas stations would result in a shifting of consumer demand to ALL THE OTHER gas stations. WHich would have the result of effectively creating a bottleneck in the supply chain (same # of consumers, trying to fulfil unreduced demand through a number of suppluiers effectively reduced by boycott). This would quite likely have the effect of creating supply disruptions (thanks to the fact that an effectively reduced number of retail outlets experiencing an overall demand increase would run into shortages), which would drive prices UP, and not down. And Exxon-Mobil's bottom line would be relatively unaffected; they'd still operate refineries that sell gasoline to non-Exxon retailers; they'd still reap the profits of high oil prices, thanks to their primary production assets---in short, this would not only achieve nothing, but it would have the opposite of the intended effect.

[sandnsea]

19. Rotating boycott

One month Exxon, then Shell, etc.

And these folks must have missed the grape and tuna boycotts, because they do work.

[Rosemary2205]

21. Now that would get attention

if millions upon millions of Americans stopped using all oil related products that would get some attention. Walk or bike everywhere - or find transit that uses only alternative fuels, don't buy anything made of or packaged in plastic or nylon. Move all our 401K's to investments that don't include oil stocks or stocks of any company that uses or buys nylon or plastic anything. It would be an incredible sacrifice because oil related products are so ingrained in our culture. Carpet, clothing, medical supplies and packaging, food packaging. It would literally mean crippling the entire economy.

Probably a little more complicated than not eating grapes, grape juice and wine though............ :)

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Oil isn't grapes, or tuna.

You can live without eating grapes, or tuna. You can't live (if you're an average American) without buying oil/gasoline/other petroleum products. Not even remotely comparable.

[sandnsea]

44. So you have to change

The point is boycotts can work. Since we know we have to use gas, we have to change the way we boycott. I would prefer to just focus on one company altogether, just Exxon. Or buy all gas from Citgo. But rotating ones would work too, the point is to send the message that we're paying attention and are willing to change our behavior to get them to change.

[drm604]

40. But that is NOT what the OP proposed.

I'm one of those "folks" you're referring to and I do recognize that boycotts sometimes work. But this proposal was that everyone refrain from buying gas on May 15. the problem with that is that people would simply fill up before or after that date and the same amount of gasoline would end up being sold with zero net effect. If the proposal had been that people should drive less then it would make sense and the grape and tuna analogies would fit. They do not fit what was proposed.

[sandnsea]

43. Which is why I proposed an alternative

Solutions, not criticism, what a concept.

[rucky]

24. Are Not!

:P

[Stand and Fight]

25. Are too!

:P

[Yollam]

27. I hereby nominate this for "Most Ironic Post of the Month"

Like this post oozes positivity and enthusiasm?

[mdmc]

29. .I think that DU is a great place

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/ www.masamania.com

[spanone]

32. Do what I'm about to do with this thread....hide it.

[etherealtruth]

34. I like cheese

Is this really the "right thing to do? " ... I question changing the OP entirely after people have responded.

[NoPasaran]

41. A one day cheese boycott would accomplish nothing

Let's face it, Big Cheese has us by the noodly appendage!

[etherealtruth]

45. Damn you for your logic and clarity!

O8)

[porphyrian]

35. No it isn't. - n/t

[lonestarnot]

36. What are you talking about?

[DS1]

37. Isn't this nay-saying?

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

46. Absolutely NAY!

*naysayer* :eyes: :P

[Mutley]

38. A one day gas boycott won't really make a difference.

It'd need to be a week at least to make a blip on the radar. Participation would also need to be very high as well.

[hyphenate]

39. Not me

for the most part. And while I approach every trial and tribulation suffered by the white house, the illegal regime and the reich-winged MSM with absolute glee, I can't help but remember the cockiness myself and many others (don't deny it, folks!) showed before the 2004 election believing that all well and good would result in a triumphant Democratic win. For me, personally, I have begun to hesitate in expressing such unbound jubilation because there is too much graft, collusion and corruption out there to make anything a sure thing. In RL, bad people DO win more often than good people, and those of us who want to set things right often lose, despite our best efforts.

We shouldn't be perpetually depressed about it, but expressing happiness mixed with some healthy skepticism is a far more psychologically appealing method, instead of pinning all hopes on transient victories which even cumulatively can't take away all the rottenness, horrific events, and terrible things which have been perpetrated by these evil doers.

We will continue to be challenged unless we can definitively win the majority in both the Senate and the House and begin impeachment hearings on both Bush and Cheney--until then, however, these strides toward making justice the rule instead of the exception aren't helping much at all. The Democrats cry foul, the MSM ignores the transgressions, and the repukes grin and bear it. The spectre of Bill Clinton has finally vanished for many, and it is clear that idiot Bush is the man responsible for many of the failed policies of the past 5 years. They can't blame it all on a man who left the white house over 5 years ago at least, as now it's quite obvious that the repukes have held control long enough to cause irreparable damage to our country's good name.

No, no naysaying, just cautious--VERY cautious--about what we hope will come, but must understand that there are no guarantees when it comes to politics, especially the dirty kind.