"Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Did you ever notice every "alternative" to replace oil, eliminate congestion, etc., always not > only preserves the car indefinitely, but makes > them and/or their system more expensive? But not preserving the car and using transit is tens of times more expensive. ITS is tens of times cheaper than building roads. > But then again why should we expect anything else from the media who gets half their money from > car advertising. Yea, yea, yea. Everyone except you is just a robot controlled by the media. No one except you has independent thoughts. > If they didn't, articles such as the following would be common: "Working to > Drive, Why do we spend more time supporting our cars than we spend driving them?" or "Exercising > to work - how the bike is effectively instant and free > transportation" or "The Soccer Mom - It isn't Soccer or Motherhood, but dumb > transportation subsidies that created her" What your proposing is totally out of touch with the needs of real people. >"Why do we spend more "defending" foreign oil than we do buying it? etc. etc. etc. Again you are totally out of touch with how our military and intelligence is used. Iraq is in 9th place for our supply oil. Afghanistan has a lot oil? Where is the big oil field in Pakistan. We fought in the Balkans. Almost no oil there. What we do in Columbia is unrelated to oil. Do you think North or South Korea is floating in oil. We have a lot troops in Europe, are they a big oil supplier. I don't think we have any troops in Russia and they large oil reserves. Similarly we don't have troops in Venezuela, Mexico, or Canada our number 3 through 1 suppliers of oil. Its almost if there is lot of oil in a country, we don't fight there very often.