This guy is going to start a war?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SearchManX
Man, this feels like high school debate...

The article that you pointed out is one scenario that MAY or MAY NOT happen. It speculates that just because we need to reduce our CO2 emissions, that it translates to 397 billion dollars. There are many factors that are probably not taken into account. It assumes that industries need to eliminate factories or 1/3 of automobiles in the US when there's alternatives like developing more fuel efficient standards or promoting new alternatives to transportation (Segway anyone? :))

I found this article that shows the Kyoto Protocol in a different light:

http://www.wwf.fr/pdf/enqueterat.pdf

In that article, it cites how Japan, with its limitation in resources and overpopulation problem have not held it back from becoming the world's second largest economy. To simply state that the US will lose jobs is laziness on the part of American industries and politicians. My theory has always been that the best results are produced when under pressure...

Of course, there are always biased opinions and ulterior motives (my article was from the WWF) so you should always hear from both sides of the coin.

---

That isn't just a "scenario" or "speculation", that article is based on a DOE study put out by the EIA, those are ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS, a concept which amazingly enough is also used in your wwf study. So much for your attempted downplay of the numbers from a factually and statistically superior study that comes from a much more reliable source. As for "simply" developing more fuel efficient standards or alternatives to transportation, you are assuming that those options are actually available or feasible technically and economically. I know of no one who wants to trade in their car for a electric car much less pay for a new one which would be more expensive than they already are as the costs of development are passed on to the consumer. "It assumes that industries need to eliminate factories or 1/3 of automobiles in the US". And could you please point out where you found this info? Because it sure isn't in the article that I posted the url to.

Actual DOE study:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/oiaf9803.pdf

It isn't just "simply" stated that we will lose jobs, as if there is no preponderance of statistical and economic evidence showing why we will. You have chosen to ignore or downplay it for some reason, I can only assume it is to defend an already assumed position.

Nice articles about the current "great" Japanese economy.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=626
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=889

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
"Over the course of the last 48 hours, we have been involved with House leadership asking if there was any possible compromise, any way that we could extend this for a month, two months -- any way that somehow that we could send a message to the one million people who will lose their benefits on the 28th of December and to the 100,000 people who will lose them each week following the 28th of December," Daschle said in a speech on the Senate floor. The answer came back 'No,' he said.

---

It's nice of Daschle to say that, but if he wanted 5 weeks, he could've accepted the House bill.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
Ok, I'm level headed now, sorry about the shmuck comment Teenwolf....
I've spoke to a long time Republican today.

Here is what he had to say....

1. Iraq launching a missle towards the US is impossible even if they had one, they do not have the ballistic capabilites. Only Russia, Israel, and the US have the capability to actually "launch" a nuclear warhead, thus we are not going to Iraq for this reason.

2. In times of economic instability (we are doing really bad right now) it is common for the government to whip up some sort of international heat to steal the media spotlight from any real issues that effect the common citizen.

3.McCarthyism is back, 9/11 gave the current powers that be the redlight to take away all of our privacy. McCarthyism took 30-40 years to everse, and now we have replaced the Communist threat with the terrorist threat. Can you say CIA operation???

4. Bush gave a tax break to wealthiest 1% of the tax bracket, and increased the levies on everybody else, the House is now trying to make this tax cut permanent, while taking this money and spreading amongst themselves.

5. Bush is doing business with Insurance companies. BIG BUSINESS.
I do not understand the complexities of what we dsicussed, but it relates to Bush passing laws which protect big insurance companies through the Home Security Act and take money from the common American.

6. The House is giving themselves a raise while cutting unemployment on Christmas, this unemployment was supposed to go on until March 29.

8. Things aint getting better anytime soon.

And if you dont think Bush isnt doing the best with this country, why am I have this discussion, we agree.

BTW: I still think Bush is a dumbass.



They dont respect power hungry, bully governments....so be it...what ideals do you speak off, murdering in third world countries for greed, enslaving third world sweat shop labor to feed the material needs of spoiled kids who thrive of MTV and pompous adults who think watching Hannity & Colmes makes them intellectual, what ideals are you speaking off???? DO you somehow think our allies in Germany, France, etc are deprived of free speech and democracy??? Let me tell you something this is no longer a Democracy. I dont know YOUR background but where I live things are much different the cops dont say hi to you.

The US has never seen a war on it's land, Europe, Russia, etc...have. Thus when we going around the world bringing DEATH...it is a big deal, and perhaps if we did conform and realize we are not living in the dark ages any longer, that there is land acrosss the Atlantic, we as a nation would prosper, we are now paying the consequences of trying to take on the world.

I hope you see where I'm coming from and I hope you open your eyes for the sake of our children.

---

No problem MrKasual.

I will respond to the last sections first.

They don't respect our basic ideology because it differs from their own, all your uninformed rhetoric ignores the main underlying ideology of most of those countries political/social/economic systems and the fact that it differs so greatly from ours in effect and intentions. And by ideals I refer to our underlying belief in the flawed nature of man and the belief in the inherent sovereignty of man. There are many more rights than free speech and "democracy" which isn't a "right". You don't seem to understand what rights are, much less which ones we have in this country and the basis for each of them. Rights which btw, most other countries do not see a real need for, or which are loudly supported but whose basis is undermined by their own actions. We are no longer a Democracy? Funny, I thought we were created as a Constitutionally Federated Republic... Do you even understand what that is or means and why that form of government differs from the collectivist governments across the world? I don't see what a cop saying hello has to do with anything, or how a failure for him to do so is an indictment of our country or form of government.

"The US has never seen a war on it's land,". um, do you even think these things through before you post them? Do I really need to go through the list of wars we have seen on US soil? ugh...

"open my eyes"? To what exactly? Non-factual rhetoric and propaganda? Because that is all that you stated here in the entire post.


You say that these are all the opinions from a "long time Republican", let's go through them and see if they are true or are positions that a Republican might hold. The fact being that I only have your word that he is a "long time Republican", if the positions don't line up or are factually incorrect the rest of you can draw your own conclusions about it.

1. This seems to be one uninformed Republican, as stone pointed out most of the nuclear equipped countries have the capability to launch nuclear warheads. And potential nuclear attack from a missle has NEVER been considered a viable threat. Red herring? Straw man? Take your pick...

As for your response to Stones response to this, Iraq does have the potential of attacking the US, Israel, its neighbors or our allies in Europe. You seem unable to fathom that an attack with a biological, chemical or Nuclear WMD could come from anything but a missile. There are a multitude of delivery systems and ways that they could attack someone, and seeing as how we have open borders and have had lax security the threat that Saddams WMD pose for the just the US alone is very real. Again you seem to pick and choose whatever you want to acknowledge in an arguement, I posted a url to the statement by the White House and top Republican (Bush) stating all the ways in which Saddam has violated the different sanctions and agreements he made after the war and the risks he poses. You and your "Republican" friend have obviously never read this or if you have you obviously ignored it. And about your "family in the military, high in ranks, who say there is no chance in hell this will happen", that is a form of ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), which is a logical fallacy and not a proof.

White house statement (again):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...iraqdecade.pdf

British documentation on Iraqi WMD:
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/...raqdossier.pdf

2. I basically agree with stones response on this one. But why would a republican choose to imply that our "government" is trying to whip something up to take away the media spotlight from "any real issues"? What is the point of making that statement other than to try to discredit any action against Iraq by implying that it is being made simply to steal the media spotlight? Again with the assumptions that totally ignore the facts and stated reasons made by the _Republicans_.

As for your response to stone MK. I don't know if you realize this but the market wasn't stable before the bubble collapsed, it was an artificial bubble and was bound to collapse at some point no matter how much the government tried to intervene (something that would have only made it worse). Stones statement still stands, that reponse did nothing to call it into question.

3. "McCarthyism is back, 9/11 gave the current powers that be the redlight to take away all of our privacy.". A Republican made this statement? Again I basically have to agree with stone on this one. This comment is pathetically uninformed and blatent propaganda. It completely ignores the historical facts about McCarthy and his effect and the facts about the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. btw, I don't agree with your comment that nothing has changed stone, clearly there have been many new assaults on our rights coming from increased power given to the government, but it in _no_ way comes near to what MK's "Republican" friend said.

As for the MK response to stone: Real nice logical fallacy (ad hominem). You totally sidestep the issue at hand, which was that obviously non-factual statement based entirely on rhetoric and propaganda, and you attack stones assumed "upper class white American" status. As if being a "upper class white American" is a flaw, or that somehow not being one gives you some special insight, wisdom or right to comment on civil liberties.

4. Again I have to say that stone is right on with his response, well done. But I also have to comment on the obvious class warfare rhetoric and propaganda that this is, what kind of "Republican" is your friend again MK?

MK, as for your response to stones response, your info there in no way refuted stones statement. "So, anyways, no, everyone got a tax break - a new 10% tax bracket came into being, and post-tax-cut, every bracket is saving money relative to before, no matter where they are economically. Now, you could've suggested that the rich enjoyed a disproportionately large amount of the tax cut, but to make that argument, you'd have to ignore the fact that the rich were also paying a disproportionately large amount of taxes pre-tax-cut.". Do I really need to point out again your total non-response to my facts about the effects that Reagans economic policies had?

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp...xpansion&id=50
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp...k+Market&id=50

5. Nice response again stone, nice to have someone else take on the response load here. :) Again, this is quite an interesting response coming from a "Republican".

6. I honestly haven't read enough about this issue to comment on it.

7. Apparently this number was skipped and we went directly to 8!

8. This of course is an assumption, and certainly not based on any understanding of the market cycle.

I'm sorry MK, I just have to come out and say it. 1. Your so called "Republican" friend is either incredibly uninformed on Republican issues, with many opinions that he did mention being either uneducated or completely opposite most Republican beliefs and opinions that I know of, but he is also somehow knowledgeable on many current liberal/leftist viewpoints about current events and believes in them. 2. Or he isn't a Republican at all but someone claiming to be one for whatever reasons I can only guess. 3. Or there is no "Republican friend" to begin with.

I have to resort to coming to these conclusions since your "Republican friend" has positions that have very little, if any, viewpoints that are held by Republicans. #1. is clearly an uneducated statement, could be made by anyone. #2. Would not be uncommon to hear from a Republican, but would be if it was trying to imply that the current administration was doing this solely as a way to draw attention from domestic concerns (which his statement was clearly implying). #3. I could see this comment being made by an extremely paranoid and very uninformed Republican, where would he be getting these opinions and views from though, seeing as how no Republican organization, publication or group that I know of would say something like this..? #4. This position and the implications of it totally disagree with the economic/social/political positions held by the Republicans, this is implied class warfare at its worse. A Republican giving this as a statement about current concerns he has or as a response to Bush? I think not. #5. A Republican voicing hatred for big business or commenting on it as if something is wrong with it or repeating commonly voiced opinions recently by leftists about the riders? Come on.. #6. Again, I haven't read enough about this issue or heard any of my friends or family comment on it, so I am not clear about the differing viewpoints or one specifically held by most Republicans. #7. This number was skipped! #8. Pessimism can be found anywhere, comment could have been made by anyone.

Along with all of this I have taken into account the fact that all of these stated positions by your "Republican" friend are all positions that completely agree with everything you have said and seem to believe in, and the fact that you defended most of them as if they were your own positions when Stone responded. This is incredibly convenient to suddenly have a whole lot of similiar positions to your own coming from a "friend" that you talked to that is supposedly from a political party that is closer to our viewpoints, a political party that in reality has positions that conflict with most of yours and your friend. I'm not calling you a liar, I am just trying to reconcile the differences between the stated positions of your "Republican" friend and everyone else I know of that calls themself a Republican and every party belief I have ever heard stated. And the fact that all of his opinions seem to mirror your own and your ready and avid defense of them when Stone questioned them. I hope you take this in the spirit in which I wrote it and not as some kind of wordy version of someone getting angry and yelling out "U R A FAGOT", because that isn't how I intended it or how it was stated...

I can't believe I spent an hour and a half writing all of that....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
2. I basically agree with stones response on this one. But why would a republican choose to imply that our "government" is trying to whip something up to take away the media spotlight from "any real issues"? What is the point of making that statement other than to try to discredit any action against Iraq by implying that it is being made simply to steal the media spotlight? Again with the assumptions that totally ignore the facts and stated reasons made by the _Republicans_.

---

I wasn't trying to imply that we're whipping something up in Iraq for political benefit, not at all. In fact, most of the arguments towards suggesting that Iraq is a political war are completely absurd.

It's just that, in the past (see Clinton), attacks and wars have been started for political benefit, and I wasn't ready to discard the argument wholesale, the way I did with the "It's BIG BUSINESS!!!" one. Any time a war/military action comes up, I think it's reasonable to try and figure out whether the action benefits the nation on a level commensurate with the added political power/approval the action is going to grant...ie, don't blow up a pharmaceuticals plant to get a spike in the polls.

Quote:

---

5. Nice response again stone, nice to have someone else take on the response load here. :) Again, this is quite an interesting response coming from a "Republican".

---

Eheh, I dunno, party politics haven't endeared themselves to the point where I'll willfully ignore that sort of stuff.


Are you an Arab/Muslim, MK? I'd just like to know what racial/religious combination was attracting all this attention from the police state? Upper-middle white, by the way.

ack, I didn't notice that I had done that until after I posted. I should have seperated the sentences after making specific references to you. The secondary comments were directed at MK and his "Republican" friend, not you.

As for the arguement in #2, I agree with you. That tactic is sometimes used to take away pressures at home. I completely disagree with the idea that this is the reason behind our going into Iraq now though. Again with #5 I was commenting on MK's "Republican" friend and should have seperated the sentences.

I disagree quite a bit with many Republican views and positions, especially when they play the political games instead of being strong on the issues. It is too much of a political machine now, and frankly I don't trust the Republican leadership anymore.

I'll take a look at those articles but first I want to address one thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
I know of no one who wants to trade in their car for a electric car much less pay for a new one which would be more expensive than they already are as the costs of development are passed on to the consumer.

---

The Honda Civic Hybrid does not cost that much more than an average car. Granted, it's not a complete electric self-sustained car, but I don't know many of those on the market. By comparison, a Toyota Rav4 sells at a comparative price. SUV's seem to be selling well:

http://www.northstar.sierraclub.org/...V_Sales_Up.htm

I'm sure if it came to the point where one would want to get a new car, mileage would be a major selling point.

Quote:

---

As for "simply" developing more fuel efficient standards or alternatives to transportation, you are assuming that those options are actually available or feasible technically and economically.

---

I never said it's simple. You are assuming it is. There are already alternatives like mass transportation but especially where I live, it is horribly underused. I personally take the bus to work everyday, there ARE alternatives, but our society is used to the luxury of owning 2 or more cars. Our country has our fair share of pollution, and to take no action about it and even DEFENDING our luxurious lifestyle is morally wrong. I'm no tree hugger, but when you have a major city like LA blanketed in smog, some sort of action NEEDS to be taken...

Almost no one likes those small electric cars, you know how I "assume" that? Consumer demand... Even with government funding, the detroit carmakers are cutting back on their programs for electric cars because there just isn't enough demand for them. I'm not assuming it would be simple, the way in which it is portrayed by every major environmental group is that it is merely a simple thing for the car manufacturers to start bringing out new alternative fuel products, but they don't due to some big business conspiracy. If you would like some web pages showing that I would be happy to post them, I'm sure you are already familiar with those ideas though. Mass transportation is only available in cities. Defending our prosperity isn't morally wrong, nice to see your true colors though. Kind of amazing how that is what environmental arguement come down to, in the end there is always a move towards redistribution of wealth.

Fun quotes to tell your children and friends.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

""I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." - Judi Barri of Earth First

"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." - Carl Amery, Green Party of West Germany

Quote:

---

The Honda Civic Hybrid does not cost that much more than an average car. Granted, it's not a complete electric self-sustained car, but I don't know many of those on the market. By comparison, a Toyota Rav4 sells at a comparative price. SUV's seem to be selling well:

---

I don't know what "that much more than an average car" is, but a Honda Civic LX (manual), with an old gas engine, is specced out almost identically to the Honda Civic Hybrid. The Honda Civic LX just happens to cost about $4,000 less.

One other thing - the Hybrid has about 80% of the horsepower rating that the Civic has.

That $4000 buys you an engine that provides about 47 miles to the gallon (Insight) vs. 37 miles to the gallon with the Civic LX (edmunds.com). How many miles would you have to drive to recoup the cost of the Insight's hybrid engine? Hrmmmm...

http://www.digitalcity.com/rochester/gasprices/

Average gas price according to that site is $1.44.

(Total Mileage in a Year)/(Gas Mileage) x Average gas price =
12,000 miles a year

Insight - $367 in gas expenses/yr
Civic LX - $467 in gas expenses/yr

So, for your +$4000 90hp engine, you save a grand total of $100. Even if you drive that car for 10 years, and gas triples in price in between now and then, you'll only have made back half of the cost of the Insight's hybrid engine.

Hybrids are stupid, and gas is currently far too cheap to worry about when it comes to cars like this. Hopefully, the engine will buy you a lot of self-satisfaction to make up for the money you've wasted.

"But, Stone, what about the environment?!"

If you have to, buy a Civic LX and donate $2500 to an environmental charity...that'll do far more good than the Hybrid's 10 extra miles to the gallon would.

Shoddy science, anyways, and shoddier economics, no surprise, really.

teenwolf

my Republican friend is real. more like a relative to be honest, and he also happens to work for a defense contractor which makes microwave devices for the government, which are used to home in on targets and kill. he has been a republican probably since before you and i were born.

and you keep accusing me of uninformed rhetoric when you are dancing in the same circles, only your circles are disguised by fancy language. listing a couple of links doesnt make you correct my friend.

i have no more time for you.

and Stone i am persian/filipino/german but look latin and grew up in a predominantly latino neighborhood. i have been beaten and arrested many times for absolutley nothing.

you are a cool guy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
and Stone i am persian/filipino/german but look latin and grew up in a predominantly latino neighborhood. i have been beaten and arrested many times for absolutley nothing.

you are a cool guy.

---

Well, thanks man, you too. I'm having a hard time, well, believing or understanding that you could be beaten or arrested many times for nothing - but, maybe I'm just lucky to be in the circles/areas that I'm in.