Features

Preechr · #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Is this what you guys voted for?

kahljorn · #2

do you think it's bad that they should take money from an industry that has no future? What will them having alot of profits do? Isn't there basically no point?

Preechr · #3

For "the guy with the answers," you sure do ask a lot of questions...

Preechr · #4

Exxon is a publically traded company, meaning it is owned by it's investors. While it's profits are huge in dollars, the profit margin is low. You won't make a killing trading in Exxon, but your money's safe. That's what makes it attractive to mutual and pension funds. What right does the government have to seize the profit of this or any other business? Banks and advertising companies see much higher profit margins, as do most businesses... like 100% more. Exxon's pulling in about a 3% margin on it's overhead and expenses. You go run a business on 3%.

Preechr · #5

As for having "no future," nobody threatened to seize the profits of RJ Reynolds. They were sued and received a judgment against them. Seizure of assets is something totally different, and government has the ability to do just that. That Hillary, a woman who has so far not really said anything that wasn't meticulously triangulated, would threaten just that is fairly scary to me. What lurks beneath the surface if this kind of stuff is so easily tossed around as something she doesn't consider to be controversial?

kahljorn · #6

I don't really like the way she said it either.

Isn't oil a finite resource, aren't they "Running low"? Also, i thought they made something like billions in profits? Anyway, when you start running low on profits due to a shortage of resources it stands that you have to invest to gain more resources, in this case another type of energy. I just thought the point of increasing the cost of product was because it's in higher demand, which means they can get more money to make more products. How can you do that with such a limited supply of resources? Without any more resources, no future industry really, it's just a waste -- and their punching us in the gut before running away with a bag of shit.

And why act like 3% isn't alot when you're dealing in billions upon billions? If somebody or something killed 3% of the world's population, it'd be a pretty big deal. I don't even know if 3% is right, but regardless, their profits have increased a lot more recently. Didn't the Ceo walk away with a few hundred million when he retired? How much of a percent of the company profits was that?

I guess taking away their money forcefully would be wrong. Oh, unless they're immoral/gained it immorally. What do you think on that?

I just don't see why there's no other type of energy available, that is as widely used. I mean, who killed the electrical car? Doesn't us living in a post-industrial age mean we should be focusing on using more and more efficient forms of energy?
I know you want to say something about freemarket here, and I would agree; but aren't they kind of breaking the bounds of "Freemarket" with some of the practices they use? Or does freemarket mean you can do anything whatsoever it doesn't matter because eventually your product will disappear? because i think that's gay. There's always some things you can do to maintain a sordid existence, the difference between it and a "healthy" existence is it comes crashing down in the end. Isn't it bad to have one of our primary resources in that process of "Crashing down"?

I just wish there was another energy industry. I've seen alot of tracthousing built lately that uses solar energy to partially power the house. That's not really an "Energy Industry" though.

kahljorn · #7

where's all the chat, chatterboxington?

adept_ninja · #8

On regaurds to the other energy sources whatever happened to products like bio-diesel which they could apparently make out of trash, saw grass and corn?

As for oil conservation they are trying different chemicals to mix in but so far they just use ethonal which after a certain percent (I think around 20% not sure) it starts ripping your engine apart.

kahljorn · #9

Well diesel engines are usually more expensive.

The electric car might make a come back. There's a documentary called, "Who killed the electric car" supposedly about how the government bought the rights to a new type of electric car and once they got it they burned all the documents regarding it and it never got produced.

Emu · #10

That's still a more believable conspiracy than Jews Did WTC

kahljorn · #11

yea it does. it's probably still exagerated quite a bit. I haven't seen the movie, though, just heard people's feelings about it.

kahljorn · #12

So what the fuck's up with this forum lately? Nobody's talking. Are you guys trying to pretend like you have friends? LIVES? WHAT THE FUCK. POST SOME STUFF SO WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!