Another reason for price increase of gas?

Seems it's 3 cents less a gallon if you use a WalMart gift card to pay for it.

So you can charge a credit to your gift card while you're checking out at WalMart, then use it to pay less for gas than you would if you charged the gas on the same card.

Weird idea, huh?

Roger

I didn't even think about that. I think I'll get one.

like you buy at the counter to give someone. Or at least that is what I did. Used one given to me at work for a safety reward program.

Their gas card may do the same thing, I don't know.

The gift cards are "rechargeable" so I guess I'll start adding $20 to an existing card every time I check out at WalMart, then go fill up when I leave the store (or put $20 in anyway, it's often $30 now to fill up).

Roger

I think it is the prudent thing to do. One thing about this gas, It probably was not made in China...

See the lawyers make big bucks?

The story said "the company's legal department sent her a letter demanding that she immediately remove photographs she had posted". The U.S. isn't trying to interfere with her freedom of the press, the objection is coming from the Canadian company.

Yeah the complaint is coming from a Canadian Company,

A Canadian company that is providing oil to Americans.


Ms. Moore says that after the tour of the site, she was ?frankly appalled? by the huge impact of the oil sands, and she felt compelled to speak out to Americans. She estimated that Syncrude's annual greenhouse-gas releases of about 10 million tonnes equal the emissions of the coal-fired power plants supplying Chicago with electricity.

She is appalled but the output of the oil sands provides a lot more energy to a lot more people than the 10 million people in the Chicago area.

Is she complaining about the pollution from the coal fired plants that only provide electricity to about 10 million people?

At least the oil companies are making an attempt to reclaim the land.

Keep complaining and we'll sell the oil to China or India.

So what's your point? She had an opinion about something and stated it. The U.S. didn't take action to censor her doing that, that was done by a Canadian company. Some people in the U.S. have complained about the way that some Chinese companies produce their goods. Objections like there are also made about the goods produced in other countries.
Those people have the right to put forth their opinions. Many people in the U.S object to many things. We call it free speech. We're even able to voice our opinions about Canadian companies. The U.S. laws do not favor censorship.

now that you know,

Complain about Canada, complain about China, complain about everyone but Americans and what happens

You keep buying, Go figure.

what are you (as an American) going to do?

Americans use more energy than any other country and only have 330 million people.

She talks about oil companies giving away hummers, American are willing to pay for them.

Would you rather get a freebee?

No I'll pay thank you very much.

The subject is about a grandmother's complaining about some Canadian company. I don't intend to give her actions much thought, she can complain about whatever she pleases.
It seems to cause you some sort of a problem, but that's your concern. It seems to fire off the "what are you going to do" routine looking for a line of attack. I never cared much for fishing, so you go ahead and tell us your opinions about what you think others should do.

when she signed her release, she gave up the right to publish.

She can take the pictures show them to her friend OR/AND enemies , she can't publish.

she is an intelligent women, she knew what she was signing.

IF she didn't sign, things would have been much different.

As an old newsman you know people sign releases.

Is that censorship?

As an old "newsman", I know the definition of censorship. Two words, prior restraint. You must do it first, then something may or may not happen. The U.S. laws do not favor "prior" restraint. Understand it now?
Nevada law forbids the taking of pictures in a casino. If I do so anyway and say that I will publish them, nothing can be done until I actually do it. For the government to forbid my publishing them, that would call for censorship - that is, prior restraint.

You call it "prior restraint" someone in the US (someone with more knowledge of the law) doesn't, since the pictures were removed.

I guess you weren't the judge.

Finally something we agree on.

It Wasn't prior restraint that had her remove the pictures.

J Vega said it was.

They made her remove the pictures AFTER they were posted.

Not correct, I said that the laws of the U.S. government did not favor prior restraint. In this case, after she published them the Canadian company threatened to take legal action and she removed them. The company threatened legal action based on a copyright issue and she removed them, a civil case (or threat of one) rather than a government case.
This was a threat of a civil suit by the company, not a matter of any action by the U.S. government. Even if the company complained to the U.S. government before the publication, the view of the U.S. government on prior restraint would have entered the picture, or should I say not have entered due to the law on prior restraint.

According to you it's everything

your statements in bold

The U.S. didn't take action to censor her doing that, that was done by a Canadian company.

As an old "newsman", I know the definition of censorship. Two words, prior restraint. You must do it first, then something may or may not happen.

The company threatened legal action based on a copyright issue and she removed them, a civil case (or threat of one) rather than a government case.

I see censorship, Canada, prior restraint, and copyright

Now you say its a copyright issue

It wasn't prior restraint it was a copyright issue

She signed a paper giving Syncrude copyright

Cover all possibilities?