Lord help us
-
And you would think that's a victory? If I admitted that using Draconian measures to keep people from using energy would be more effective than cap and trade? Really?
What's wrong with you?
This isn't about how you can eliminate the most CO2 emissions in a theoretical world, or by any means necessary. (How about we ban cars and hot water and make people read by firelight - even better!) This is about what real-world solutions are politically and economically viable.
If you care to live in the former world, that's your right. And your wish, as it would seem. It's also really, really pointless, not to mention submental.
I suppose we could raise more revenue by having the government seize all of Microsoft's profits, too. And I could bore you with another 99 similarly irrelevant examples.
But why would you bother?
As for this being about me not really giving a shit about environmental issues, and that this is just a ploy to get me to put aside my arrogance and admit that revelation to myself ...um, sure.
I think it's about how much time I can waste in a day discussing serious issues with someone who isn't serious.
-
I've got an idea to deal with childhood obesity: have the government restrict children to one meal a day.
That would be more effective than altering the school lunch program, wouldn't it? Admit it.
-
I've got an idea to deal with childhood obesity: have the government restrict children to one meal a day.
That would be more effective than altering the school lunch program, wouldn't it? Admit it.
I've got an idea to deal with childhood obesity: have the government restrict children to one meal a day.
That would be more effective than altering the school lunch program, wouldn't it? Admit it.
Oh no Heck.
I wanna tax food.
One burger=$400.00.
That oughta do it.
Only the rich can get fat!!
WSS
-
And you would think that's a victory? If I admitted that using Draconian measures to keep people from using energy would be more effective than cap and trade? Really?
What's wrong with you?
This isn't about how you can eliminate the most CO2 emissions in a theoretical world, or by any means necessary. (How about we ban cars and hot water and make people read by firelight - even better!) This is about what real-world solutions are politically and economically viable.
If you care to live in the former world, that's your right. And your wish, as it would seem. It's also really, really pointless, not to mention submental.
I suppose we could raise more revenue by having the government seize all of Microsoft's profits, too. And I could bore you with another 99 similarly irrelevant examples.
But why would you bother?
As for this being about me not really giving a shit about environmental issues, and that this is just a ploy to get me to put aside my arrogance and admit that revelation to myself ...um, sure.
I think it's about how much time I can waste in a day discussing serious issues with someone who isn't serious.
What's wrong with you?
This isn't about how you can eliminate the most CO2 emissions in a theoretical world,
It sure isn't.
It's about a dangerous and disingenuous tax plan that will hobble the US much much more than it will help the environment.
WSS
-
How do you know? You don't even know what it is.
-
I suppose that Obama's "civilain defense corps" would be in charge of monitoring energy use.
You won't believe the people wanting to hoard firewood and food and bottled water...
I take it that Heck wants to be in Obama's cdc. Informants on who turns their lights on after
lights off curfew, who drives too big a car,...
but that's silly.
Till something like it happens. Meanwhile, Heck will be trying to act like Mr. Objective Know-it-all.
Which means, full of cowpie.
Moo.
-
How do you know? You don't even know what it is.
How do you know? You don't even know what it is.
Is that really all you've got Heck?
You're too big a puss to sxeriously contradict my admittely bullshit solutions but cripe.
And all you give in defense of YOUR bullshit is a sneering "Well you just aren't smart enough to know how it will save the world. I, sir, am a personal friend of Barbara Boxer!!"
OK tell me the big difference between your panacea and MY plan to issue every drive a certain amount of mileage credits needed for work and basics and perhaps a limited amount of leisure.
Lets say some rich asshole wants to drive his Lexus SUV to a global warming soiree in Asoen.
No sweat he can buy more miles from the poor bastard across the tracks thgat can't afford to go to Aspen anyway.
He goes over the amount he can strongarm people out of?
Big deal.
He can still pay the fine. Or hey!! I bet some lefty senator can sell me some huh!!
(which anyone with a brain can see is a tax)
But he ain't riding a bike.
WSS
-
"You're too big a puss to sxeriously contradict my admittely bullshit solutions but cripe."
This is bizarre. You're admitting that your solution isn't serious, then attacking me as a "puss" for ignoring it? And by ignoring it, you mean engaging you for months on end, much to my own dismay. Got it.
And then you're surprised and stunned that I find your dismissals of cap and trade plans to be meaningless since you haven't yet (over the course of two years) shown any evidence that you know anything about them. Or as you might put it, Generally, people should know what they're talking about when discussing an issue, no? Yes or no?
Here's a small problem with your admittedly stupid plan - emissions from cars only count for something like 35%-40% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Here's another small problem - while you gripe about burdening people with taxes, your system is essentially a poorly designed tax on gasoline consumption that requires lots of government monitoring of how much an individual travels.
But again, you did get to make a crack about me, Barbara Boxer, rich liberals, and lefty senators. And isn't that what it's all about?
-
"You're too big a puss to sxeriously contradict my admittely bullshit solutions but cripe."
This is bizarre. You're admitting that your solution isn't serious, then attacking me as a "puss" for ignoring it? And by ignoring it, you mean engaging you for months on end, much to my own dismay. Got it.
And then you're surprised and stunned that I find your dismissals of cap and trade plans to be meaningless since you haven't yet (over the course of two years) shown any evidence that you know anything about them. Or as you might put it, Generally, people should know what they're talking about when discussing an issue, no? Yes or no?
Here's a small problem with your admittedly stupid plan - emissions from cars only count for something like 35%-40% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Here's another small problem - while you gripe about burdening people with taxes, your system is essentially a poorly designed tax on gasoline consumption that requires lots of government monitoring of how much an individual travels.
But again, you did get to make a crack about me, Barbara Boxer, rich liberals, and lefty senators. And isn't that what it's all about?
"You're too big a puss to sxeriously contradict my admittely bullshit solutions but cripe."
This is bizarre. You're admitting that your solution isn't serious, then attacking me as a "puss" for ignoring it? And by ignoring it, you mean engaging you for months on end, much to my own dismay. Got it.
Oh honey c'mon don't weasel out.
Sure my proposals are bullshit.
But they would do more toward the problem (the problem you state) than yours.
They're bullshit because nobody really gives a rats ass about global warming.
They just want the issue to cry about for months on end.
And then you're surprised and stunned that I find your dismissals of cap and trade plans to be meaningless since you haven't yet (over the course of two years) shown any evidence that you know anything about them. Or as you might put it, Generally, people should know what they're talking about when discussing an issue, no? Yes or no?
Uh so weren't you gonna tell me the huge difference between my stupid plan to sell mileage credits? Looks exactly like Cap and Trade doesn't it? Yes or No? Hey what if I call 'em CARBON credits?
Did you read it or just barking at me? {as I siuspect} BTW it's called cap and trade because it's real name, energy tax sounds too honest
Here's a small problem with your admittedly stupid plan - emissions from cars only count for something like 35%-40% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Oh well, 40 % is hardly worth bothering with. And remember it's part of my comprehensive "save the world" plan.
Here's another small problem - while you gripe about burdening people with taxes, your system is essentially a poorly designed tax on gasoline consumption that requires lots of government monitoring of how much an individual travels.
But again, you did get to make a crack about me, Barbara Boxer, rich liberals, and lefty senators. And isn't that what it's all about?
Partially.
Part of it is about you not being able to defend a policy even stupider than my facetious ones.
And as you dodge the truth you got in some "well you're stupid" retorts.
We should sell you snotty insult credits.
WSS
-
Steve, if you wanted to put a tax on gasoline, why would you devise some massive scheme to monitor how far people drive and then devise some system that allows them to buy credits to drive further than the government allows? Why not just ...tax gasoline?
Also, it doesn't matter how far you drive; it's how much gasoline you use. If two cars go 50 miles, and one uses one gallon while another uses three gallons, why would you tax them the same?
As for defending cap and trade and carbon taxes, give me a break. I've probably written 100 pages worth in here over the years, usually in conversations with Tupa. And you think global warming is a hoax anyway, so why would you care? Obviously someone like you has the ability to sort through all the science and determine that the science is bunk. So why are we even having this discussion?
As for snotty insults, how would you like me to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about? Sorry I'm not sweeter. It's not my thing.
-
Steve, if you wanted to put a tax on gasoline, why would you devise some massive scheme to monitor how far people drive and then devise some system that allows them to buy credits to drive further than the government allows? Why not just ...tax gasoline?
Also, it doesn't matter how far you drive; it's how much gasoline you use. If two cars go 50 miles, and one uses one gallon while another uses three gallons, why would you tax them the same?
As for defending cap and trade and carbon taxes, give me a break. I've probably written 100 pages worth in here over the years, usually in conversations with Tupa. And you think global warming is a hoax anyway, so why would you care? Obviously someone like you has the ability to sort through all the science and determine that the science is bunk. So why are we even having this discussion?
As for snotty insults, how would you like me to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about? Sorry I'm not sweeter. It's not my thing.
Steve, if you wanted to put a tax on gasoline, why would you devise some massive scheme to monitor how far people drive and then devise some system that allows them to buy credits to drive further than the government allows? Why not just ...tax gasoline?
Also, it doesn't matter how far you drive; it's how much gasoline you use. If two cars go 50 miles, and one uses one gallon while another uses three gallons, why would you tax them the same?
As for defending cap and trade and carbon taxes, give me a break. I've probably written 100 pages worth in here over the years, usually in conversations with Tupa. And you think global warming is a hoax anyway, so why would you care? Obviously someone like you has the ability to sort through all the science and determine that the science is bunk. So why are we even having this discussion?
As for snotty insults, how would you like me to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about? Sorry I'm not sweeter. It's not my thing.
Quit dancing around the issue.
I said issue mileage credits.
You need more you must buy them from someone who uses less OR the government.
Call 'em carbon credits and say US businesses instead of drivers.
Same fu*ing thing.
Matter of fact I used your dipshit cap and trade boondoggle as a framework just to hear you yap.
Post the same bullshit until hell freezes over and it doesn't make it a good or even a workable plan.
And I say you're stupid if you think China or India are gonna cripple their economies with it.
No matter how much the world loves Obama.
Seriously. They'll praise the empty suit UNTIL it's time for them to put up.
See worldwide cap and trade hurts the US and benefits them. No wonder Europe is up for it.
And I don't think it will have any effect on global warming or at least a tiny bit compared to the damage it causes.
And I think society will move better toward the natural change to different and new sources of energy without the whitehouse's tax.
I own a flat screen TV, cell phone, a CD and MP3 player , a GPS and digital recording software.
Why?
Because they work beter than the old shit.
Not because Obammy forced me to at gunpoint.
WSS
-
Okay, Steve.
-
Okay, Steve.
Okay, Steve.
IOW
Nothing I can see as actually wrong but I hate you.
Thanks Heck.
WSS
-
Don't worry about it, Steve - Heck hates everybody who isn't... him.
-
Steve, if you wanted to put a tax on gasoline, why would you devise some massive scheme to monitor how far people drive and then devise some system that allows them to buy credits to drive further than the government allows? Why not just ...tax gasoline?
Also, it doesn't matter how far you drive; it's how much gasoline you use. If two cars go 50 miles, and one uses one gallon while another uses three gallons, why would you tax them the same?
As for defending cap and trade and carbon taxes, give me a break. I've probably written 100 pages worth in here over the years, usually in conversations with Tupa. And you think global warming is a hoax anyway, so why would you care? Obviously someone like you has the ability to sort through all the science and determine that the science is bunk. So why are we even having this discussion?
As for snotty insults, how would you like me to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about? Sorry I'm not sweeter. It's not my thing.
Steve, if you wanted to put a tax on gasoline, why would you devise some massive scheme to monitor how far people drive and then devise some system that allows them to buy credits to drive further than the government allows? Why not just ...tax gasoline?
I'll pretend that's serious.
Because Heck, it only targets those who drive wastefully not those who just use what they need.
and so frugal drivers can profit from selling their unused credits.
Plus it encourages the Lexus SUV owner to switch to a more fuel efficient car. Doubling the price of gas won't slow down a fellow making 100k but one pulling down 30?
Plus you take a bite out of unemployment hiring people to man the monitorint stations.
What's the downside?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login