THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Otto Yamamoto on 7 Jul 2010 07:38 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > Factcheck ain't that factual... When it appears to oppose your point of view. BTW have you found those Socialists and/or Communists yet? -- Otto Yamamoto
From: Larry G on 7 Jul 2010 12:37 On Jul 7, 7:08 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 03:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other > >people in the world while complaining about the consequences of such > >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty > >hypocritical. > > Is that what we should be aiming for? We use a whale of a lot more > energy than people living in grass or mud huts and farming with hand > tools. We supposed to do that too? > > We use more that the Europeans because they've been taxing their > energy and everything else in sight to pay for their rampant socialism > which is about to break their little toy economic systems "after a > long illness", as they about some people who have died. > > >Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in > >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such > >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish? > > That's one of the other components of this scam - the envirowackos are > using GW to promote their extremist environmentalism with this huge > scarecrow which is the global warming nonsense. Yet they say we: > > Can't build nuclear > Can't build natural gas ports on the west coast. > Can't run power lines from a solar farm thru the Forest in California > Can't build drilling platforms in view of the Kennedys. > Can't have the fuel efficient diesel cars they've been using in Europe > for years. > Can't, Can't, Can't. > > "Can't" died in the poorhouse, my Mom always used to say, and that's > exactly where we're headed. > > The envirowackos have been infiltrated by the communists, and are > attacking our country with all sorts of things that impede our > progress and actually help ourselves do things cleaner. The nonsense > of being against a power line going thru a forest is so over the top > that it's ridiculous - power lines don't hurt anything. What utter > buffoonery. > > >There are consequences to energy use. It does not come without > >impacts. If you know this - should it have _some_ effect on how much > >you use? > > >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it > >being a "sin" to use _any_ ? > > Who's determining what I "need?" There's a whole bunch of people > that, not so long ago, were determined that I didn't "need" a gun, > either. The NRA finally won that nonsense, but this is more nonsense > that just has to be beaten back. > > Do I need a 2 week vacation to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, an 1800 > mile drive in each direction? These envirowackos will tell you I > don't need a vacation that involves leaving my property. They want us > to become economic slaves, going to work, coming back, and nowhere > else. They won't say it in so many words right now, but that's where > they're going. Well, F them. I oppose all new > environmentally-initiated legislation, because we achieved all we > needed to about 20 years ago. Further nonsense along these lines are > just attacks upon our country by its enemies in the disguise of > "environmentalists." I'm actually not in heavy disagreement about the "no" enviro-weenies agenda but I AM in favor of RECOGNIZING realities. How much energy should you use? You should use no more than the average amount of industrialized countries average per capita use - about 1/2 what you use now. That's a fair and equitable "share" that is way more than those in mud huts. You should pay for the damage you do to mountain-tops or be prepared to pay more for non-mountaintop removal energy.. ditto with mercury- laden electricity.. you should pay for the true cost of Nuke Power - which will include the actual insurance costs associated with that power - as opposed to those costs being subsidized. The fact is - that if you had to actually pay the true cost of energy and it was not subsidized, it would cost you what it cost those in Europe - about twice a much - and then you would find a way (like they did) to cut your use... that's not communism... that's paying your fair share of the costs.. the actual costs.
From: Clark F Morris on 7 Jul 2010 13:20 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:08:19 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 03:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Larry G ><gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other >>people in the world while complaining about the consequences of such >>prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty >>hypocritical. > >Is that what we should be aiming for? We use a whale of a lot more >energy than people living in grass or mud huts and farming with hand >tools. We supposed to do that too? > >We use more that the Europeans because they've been taxing their >energy and everything else in sight to pay for their rampant socialism >which is about to break their little toy economic systems "after a >long illness", as they about some people who have died. > >>Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in >>mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such >>levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish? > >That's one of the other components of this scam - the envirowackos are >using GW to promote their extremist environmentalism with this huge >scarecrow which is the global warming nonsense. Yet they say we: While I agree with some of your points below, mountain top removal has measurable and significant impacts. A high voltage (200KV or higher) power line through anywhere means a swath is clear cut that is at least as wide as a two lane road and probably much wider. This may be acceptable in many/most cases but it is not trivial. If energy is subsidized it may be wasted. Right now we subsidize most modes of transportation including automobiles (remember the sales taxes to build freeways in Phoenix). Freight rail is subsidized in many parts of the world. Barge definitely is. Air is (tax free land for airports, traffic control systems, etc.). Does this make sense? Clark Morris > >Can't build nuclear >Can't build natural gas ports on the west coast. >Can't run power lines from a solar farm thru the Forest in California >Can't build drilling platforms in view of the Kennedys. >Can't have the fuel efficient diesel cars they've been using in Europe >for years. >Can't, Can't, Can't. > >"Can't" died in the poorhouse, my Mom always used to say, and that's >exactly where we're headed. > >The envirowackos have been infiltrated by the communists, and are >attacking our country with all sorts of things that impede our >progress and actually help ourselves do things cleaner. The nonsense >of being against a power line going thru a forest is so over the top >that it's ridiculous - power lines don't hurt anything. What utter >buffoonery. > >>There are consequences to energy use. It does not come without >>impacts. If you know this - should it have _some_ effect on how much >>you use? >> >>Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it >>being a "sin" to use _any_ ? > >Who's determining what I "need?" There's a whole bunch of people >that, not so long ago, were determined that I didn't "need" a gun, >either. The NRA finally won that nonsense, but this is more nonsense >that just has to be beaten back. > >Do I need a 2 week vacation to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, an 1800 >mile drive in each direction? These envirowackos will tell you I >don't need a vacation that involves leaving my property. They want us >to become economic slaves, going to work, coming back, and nowhere >else. They won't say it in so many words right now, but that's where >they're going. Well, F them. I oppose all new >environmentally-initiated legislation, because we achieved all we >needed to about 20 years ago. Further nonsense along these lines are >just attacks upon our country by its enemies in the disguise of >"environmentalists."
From: Dave Head on 7 Jul 2010 13:21 On 07 Jul 2010 11:38:22 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > >> Factcheck ain't that factual... > >When it appears to oppose your point of view. Read the rebuttal, see what YOU think. I mean, when FactCheck uses studies that don't actually represent the Fair Tax, and that study doesn't even take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes that the Fair Tax calls for, and for which are some of the largest tax bites for low to middle income people, then how credible are they? That's in the rebuttal, and more. > BTW have you found those Socialists and/or Communists yet? Not looking for them. Know they are there, nobody that proposes and gets legislation as harmful to the country as they have can be doing that by accident. They're attacking the country, plain and simple.
From: Larry G on 7 Jul 2010 16:47
On Jul 7, 1:21 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On 07 Jul 2010 11:38:22 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <st...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > > >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:20:19 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > > >> Factcheck ain't that factual... > > >When it appears to oppose your point of view. > > Read the rebuttal, see what YOU think. I mean, when FactCheck uses > studies that don't actually represent the Fair Tax, and that study > doesn't even take into account the repeal of the payroll taxes that > the Fair Tax calls for, and for which are some of the largest tax > bites for low to middle income people, then how credible are they? > > That's in the rebuttal, and more. > > > BTW have you found those Socialists and/or Communists yet? > > Not looking for them. Know they are there, nobody that proposes and > gets legislation as harmful to the country as they have can be doing > that by accident. They're attacking the country, plain and simple. re: factCheck. Okay..how about an OBJECTIVE analysis other than from supporters of the FAIR TAX? |