THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Matthew Russotto on 29 Jul 2010 22:47 In article <5v2456h9l4lmc85j3r0i92ccvlempjv9ku(a)4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:09:23 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: > >>In article <n1tp46d46jla0ial53eoun6rjj4103n6n7(a)4ax.com>, >>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>> >>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty >>><Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in >>>misc.transport.road: >>> >>>> >>>>> In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he >>>>>>> puts it. >>>>>> >>>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level. >>>>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog >>>>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. >>>>> >>>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living. >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that >>>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 >>>>>> what we do. >>>>> >>>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. >>>>> >>>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a >>>>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on >>>>>> the house and transportation. >>>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. >>>>> >>>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without >>>>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to >>>>>> start with. >>>>> >>>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts >>>>> in energy use. >>>>> >>>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. >>>>>> >>>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually >>>>>> had money for other things.. >>>> >>>>Other things like higher taxes? >>> >>>Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century. >>Lie. > >Look at the revenue as a percent of GDP. How about I look at tax rates as a percent of income instead? Because the fact that the feds are getting less revenue because a lot more people are unemployed reduces my tax burden not one iota. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Jason Pawloski on 29 Jul 2010 23:02 THOUSANDTH POST YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BITCHES!
From: Dave Head on 30 Jul 2010 03:12 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:52:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Otto Yamamoto ><comrade.otto.yamamoto(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> But you wouldn't WANT a real solution to this, right? Interfere with >>> the ability to tell everyone what to do... y'know... I notice you >>> simply ignored it. Tells a lot. >> >>What I might 'want' is immaterial. I don't see any 'real solution' >>coming down the line. > >I knew it! Wow, can I call 'em, or what? Device to lower CO2 to >pre-industrial levels in 10 years, and you want to ignore it. This is >just grand. Just classic!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! And its July 30, 6 days later, and nobody wants to discuss a possibility that we wouldn't have to spend 50 trillion dollars to lower CO2 levels (and cart most of that money out of the USA to do it) to pre-industrial levels, but instead could do so with a process that would probably produce about $15 trillion dollars worth of very high purity carbon that could be used as coal to generate electricity with no mercury in the air, no sulphur dioxide in the air, no radioactive effluents in the air, etc. etc. No, nobody on the "scare hell out of 'em so they'll give us trillions of dollars to fix a fake problem" side of this wants to know about a solution to their global warming scarecrow. Once again, here's the solution: http://www.physorg.com/news199005915.html
From: Free Lunch on 30 Jul 2010 08:43 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:47:18 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: >In article <5v2456h9l4lmc85j3r0i92ccvlempjv9ku(a)4ax.com>, >Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:09:23 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >>Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road: >> >>>In article <n1tp46d46jla0ial53eoun6rjj4103n6n7(a)4ax.com>, >>>Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:26:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty >>>><Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in >>>>misc.transport.road: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he >>>>>>>> puts it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level. >>>>>>> There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog >>>>>>> as he does - despite the higher cost of energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that >>>>>>> people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2 >>>>>>> what we do. >>>>>> >>>>>> A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman. >>>>>> >>>>>>> they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a >>>>>>> standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on >>>>>>> the house and transportation. >>>>>> Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without >>>>>>> even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to >>>>>>> start with. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts >>>>>> in energy use. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually >>>>>>> had money for other things.. >>>>> >>>>>Other things like higher taxes? >>>> >>>>Federal taxes are the lowest they have been in half a century. >>>Lie. >> >>Look at the revenue as a percent of GDP. > >How about I look at tax rates as a percent of income instead? Because >the fact that the feds are getting less revenue because a lot more >people are unemployed reduces my tax burden not one iota. Tax rates as percent of income is fine. They are the lowest in 50 years.
From: Larry G on 30 Jul 2010 16:27
On Jul 30, 3:12 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:52:42 -0400, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> > wrote: > > >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Otto Yamamoto > ><comrade.otto.yamam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> But you wouldn't WANT a real solution to this, right? Interfere with > >>> the ability to tell everyone what to do... y'know... I notice you > >>> simply ignored it. Tells a lot. > > >>What I might 'want' is immaterial. I don't see any 'real solution' > >>coming down the line. > > >I knew it! Wow, can I call 'em, or what? Device to lower CO2 to > >pre-industrial levels in 10 years, and you want to ignore it. This is > >just grand. Just classic!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! > > And its July 30, 6 days later, and nobody wants to discuss a > possibility that we wouldn't have to spend 50 trillion dollars to > lower CO2 levels (and cart most of that money out of the USA to do it) > to pre-industrial levels, but instead could do so with a process that > would probably produce about $15 trillion dollars worth of very high > purity carbon that could be used as coal to generate electricity with > no mercury in the air, no sulphur dioxide in the air, no radioactive > effluents in the air, etc. etc. > > No, nobody on the "scare hell out of 'em so they'll give us trillions > of dollars to fix a fake problem" side of this wants to know about a > solution to their global warming scarecrow. Once again, here's the > solution: > > http://www.physorg.com/news199005915.html thanks for the link... interesting now one for you: " Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage" " PARIS Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a historic crossover, the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?src=busln |