 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Want to stop oil depletion? Want something that WILL work?
Hi. Here's an argument to debate. Would this stop the peak oil problem, the global warming problem, and other problems related to use of fossil energy? A fair market. "Some say that market forces will take care of the peak oil problem. They argue that as we approach or pass the peak of production, the price of oil will increase and alternatives will become more competitive. Following this, consumers will act to replace our need for non-petroleum energy resources. This philosophy is partly true. However, the main problem with this argument is that current U.S. oil prices do not accurately reflect the full social costs of oil consumption. Currently, in the United States, federal and state taxes add up to about 40 cents per gallon of gasoline. A World Resources Institute analysis found that fuel-related costs not covered by drivers are at least twice that much. The current price of oil does not include the full cost of road maintenance, health and environmental costs attributed to air pollution, the financial risks of global warming from increasing carbon dioxide emissions or the threats to national security from importing oil. Because the price of oil is artificially low, significant private investment in alternative technologies that provide a long-term payback does not exist. _Until oil and its alternatives compete in a FAIR MARKET, new technologies will not thrive._" Rep. Tom Udall So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be developed to be as cheap and easy as oil if not cheaper. Bam. Energy problem solved. Guaranteed near 100%. But how to get a fair market? Just something I was curious about... > Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Just something I was curious about... I solved the peak oil problem years ago. To entice (not force) americans into small cars we should hand out moving violation fines that vary with the listed weight of the vehicle. Of course this makes sense from a safety standpoint too but its also a way to encourage the idiot american to buy smaller vehicles. And, even more obviously, we should lower speed limits to 55 or even lower. To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. >>Hi. >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the > maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. Hey, shitferbrains, did you know that an acre of land in my area is worth over a million dollars without anything built on it? How's that figure into your calculations? And while you babble on about smaller this and that, did it ever occur to you that size and efficiency are two different things? Someone could have a large house with good insulation and energy saving appliances and use less energy than a smaller house with no special features. I think my electric bill last month was under $20, although admittedly the heat is gas and isn't cheap these days (really need to get some insulation on the second floor.) nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>Hi. >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > admittedly the heat is gas and isn't cheap these days (really need to get > some insulation on the second floor.) Under $20, huh? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Alaska? >>>>Hi. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Under $20, huh? > Hey, want to buy a bridge in Alaska? You don't believe me? It's entirely possible as 90% of the lights in my house are fluorescent, and there's only two people who both are conscious of energy-wasting appliances. It would have been even lower had I not been using an electric heater in the garage. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the > > maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. > > Hey, shitferbrains, did you know that an acre of land in my area is > worth over a million dollars without anything built on it? Believe me, after Laura gets done instituting it's policies on America, it won't be worth a million bucks. >>>To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the >>>maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Believe me, after Laura gets done instituting it's policies on America, > it won't be worth a million bucks. don't tell me that, because the bank actually owns most of it although my name is on the title :( In all seriousness though, the land that I "own" is worth more than the house and garage combined, according to the assessment. Everything could burn to the ground and I'd only be out maybe $150K or so. Not that that isn't quite a few times my life's savings, but still, it kind of puts the value of land into perspective. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the > > maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. > > Hey, shitferbrains, did you know that an acre of land in my area is > worth over a million dollars without anything built on it? HAHAHA. Land doesn't cost a mill an acre where you live and even if it did, i referred to insuring the HOME not the land. Go out and buy all the land you want but we need to encourage people to not build ostentatious mansions on it and my idea of limiting home insurance solves the problem perfectly. > HAHAHA. Land doesn't cost a mill an acre where you live and even if it > did, i referred to insuring the HOME not the land. Go out and buy all > the land you want but we need to encourage people to not build > ostentatious mansions on it and my idea of limiting home insurance > solves the problem perfectly. It'd be simpler to just eliminate the home mortgage deduction. Having the feds subsidize mortgages encourages homes as an investment rather than a need. >> HAHAHA. Land doesn't cost a mill an acre where you live and even if it >> did, i referred to insuring the HOME not the land. Go out and buy all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It'd be simpler to just eliminate the home mortgage deduction. Social Security was once said to be political kryptonite. The home mortgage interest deduction makes Social Security look safe to handle. >Having the feds subsidize mortgages encourages homes as an investment rather >than a need. It's not a subsidy. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>HAHAHA. Land doesn't cost a mill an acre where you live and even if it >>did, i referred to insuring the HOME not the land. Go out and buy all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the feds subsidize mortgages encourages homes as an investment rather > than a need. If the gov't didn't consider it necessary to subsidize, I'd still be renting. The real value of the property makes it worthwhile to pay appx. 2x each month what I was paying in rent (not even counting repairs/upgrades etc.) nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>HAHAHA. Land doesn't cost a mill an acre where you live and even if it >>>did, i referred to insuring the HOME not the land. Go out and buy all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >appx. 2x each month what I was paying in rent (not even counting >repairs/upgrades etc.) In addition the mortgage lenders pay taxes on the interest that the home owner gets to deduct and profits above $400,000 are taxed as capital gains when the home is sold. SignatureWherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS "There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is impossible." -- Jack Vance "Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant. "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net > If the gov't didn't consider it necessary to subsidize, I'd still be > renting. The real value of the property makes it worthwhile to pay > appx. 2x each month what I was paying in rent (not even counting > repairs/upgrades etc.) My case would be about average for the US, I suppose. When I work out the numbers, the subsidy from the tax deduction really isn't that much. Say abou t$12k per year in interest, at about the 25% marginal rate, so at most I get a few grand. Better than losing it I suppose. But the psychological factor is huge. So many people are encourage to purchase all the home they can squeeze into their checkbook, rather than what they need or really use. So we have mcmansions and foreclosures. Great system. Not. And if you can't afford a home, what do you get to deduct for your rent? squat. But millionaires and congresscritters get to deduct the mortage money on 2 homes. That doesn't add up. I've got nothing against being rich--I'd like to be there someday. But subsidizing things this way isn't too smart. The real estate industry has some wonderful lobbyists. If mortgage money weren't deductible, I'd still own one way or another. I like to work on my own place, and hate to depend on some other schmuck to fix things that break. > > > To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the > > > maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HAHAHA. Land doesn't cost a mill an acre where you live I was bored; i looked it up. $393,800 assessed LAND value for 0.14 acres. that works out to a little over $2.8 million per acre. Now, that's zoned residential; commercial property is significantly more valuable. Even assuming that the assessed value is optimistic, even open market I bet you could get well over a mil for an acre of undeveloped land. Assuming you could find one. > and even if it > did, i referred to insuring the HOME not the land. Go out and buy all > the land you want but we need to encourage people to not build > ostentatious mansions on it and my idea of limiting home insurance > solves the problem perfectly. Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? nate > Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like > particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? Because of the consumption of materials and energy, which do affect us all. >>Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like >>particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? > > Because of the consumption of materials and energy, which do affect us > all. My point was, some small houses use lots of energy. Some big houses are efficient. If it's energy use you object to, say "energy use" don't arbitrarily correlate "size" with "energy use" when there isn't necessarily a connection. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like >>>particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > nate The fact that "some" small houses use more energy than other small house is NOT evidence that small houses use too much energy. On average small houses use less energy and raw materials than large houses. If we want to conserve energy, materials and their attendant pollution we should discourage the building of overly large houses via high taxation. >>>>Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like >>>>particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > should > discourage the building of overly large houses via high taxation. No, if you consider your goals desirable, you should tax the materials and energy used. This is the same kind of thinking that brought us CAFE, please let's not go down that road again. Also, directly taxing energy might give us large houses that use less energy than the average small house of today, and encourage people to insulate older houses. Of course, that doesn't help the problem that you have which is that you just don't like the choices "those people" make. I actually agree with you, but unlike you, I realize that this is the United States, and if someone wants to be a conspicuous consumer, there's sweet FA I can do about it except make fun of them. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > My point was, some small houses use lots of energy. Some big houses are > efficient. If it's energy use you object to, say "energy use" don't > arbitrarily correlate "size" with "energy use" when there isn't > necessarily a connection. A building can be small or large; efficient or inefficient. There isn't necessarily a direct correlation. However, it stands to reason that a larger home will consume more "whatever" than a small house, if they are similarly built. Furthermore, a huge home, even if it were built to be "off the grid", and perhaps use no firewood, would still consume materials and energy just in its construction. I would LOVE to see some builders pay more attention to energy efficiency, even for the smaller homes, say 1000 to 1500 square feet. There's no reason that they can't be built with much more effective insulation and efficient heating/cooling so that the people who live in them can spend less on energy. But that requires too much thinking for the builder, and some education from the home buyer. Both are in short supply.... >I would LOVE to see some builders pay more attention to energy >efficiency, even for the smaller homes, say 1000 to 1500 square feet. >There's no reason that they can't be built with much more effective >insulation and efficient heating/cooling so that the people who live in >them can spend less on energy. There's multiple reasons, #1 being money. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >I would LOVE to see some builders pay more attention to energy > >efficiency, even for the smaller homes, say 1000 to 1500 square feet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's multiple reasons, #1 being money. Yeah, partly money. But I've tried to throw money at some builders to get them to upgrade the insulation, insulate the hot water pipes underground, etc., and with rare exceptions they chuckle and send me down the road. There aren't enough people like me trying to do things right. I'm not talking about wasting money; I'm talking about a few extra grand in the building to save bundles more over the next x years. Too many homebuyers agonize over the wall color matching the carpet and the counter top, but all of these can be changed at any time. Once the house is built, you are pretty much stuck with the insulation you have, because an upgrade is extremely difficult. So yes, it's money. Which is why I am hoping and praying for $5 per gallon for gas, and equivalently high prices for natural gas, coal, electricity, etc. That's the only way to wake Americans and their companies up to the need to conserve. We'll do it; the only question is whether we'll do it nicely or in a serious crunch. I'm not optimistic... >> Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like >> particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? > >Because of the consumption of materials and energy, which do affect us >all. Down that path lies tyranny. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like > >> particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Down that path lies tyranny. I said I CARE. I didn't say I wanted to do anything about it. Besides, your "tyranny" comment is empty rhetoric. It could be thrown at virtually any legal system or requirement. Still, when you look at some folks with houses that are multiples of tens of thousand of square feet, probably real pretty but not energy efficient, you gotta think to yourself......that's nuts. >> >> Why do you care how big someone's house is? I actually don't like >> >> particularly large houses, but if it makes someone happy, so what? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Besides, your "tyranny" comment is empty rhetoric. It could be thrown >at virtually any legal system or requirement. It's not empty rhetoric. It sticks in this case because just about any activity uses materials and energy. Which means that, if use of materials and energy is sufficient to make an activity of interest to all of us, all our activities are everyone's business. If all our activities are everyone's business, then there's no way to say, when a restriction is proposed, "that's none of your business". Which means all our activities are subject to restriction, which is tyranny. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > It's not empty rhetoric. It sticks in this case because just about > any activity uses materials and energy. Which means that, if use of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > restriction is proposed, "that's none of your business". Which means > all our activities are subject to restriction, which is tyranny. While some people have difficulty with it, there is a huge difference between the common good, and tyranny. >> It's not empty rhetoric. It sticks in this case because just about >> any activity uses materials and energy. Which means that, if use of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >While some people have difficulty with it, there is a huge difference >between the common good, and tyranny. When "the common good" reaches out to cover all aspects of everyone's life, it's tyranny. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, a connisseur of gay kid porn in its single wide, spewed forth this crap in rec.autos.driving: << ECP removed >> > To encourage people to own smaller homes we need a law that says the > maximum any private home can be insured for is $500,000. Just because all you can - barely - afford is a single wide trailer built in 1962 doesn't mean that the rest of should have to stoop to your level, trailer trash. SignatureAunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>," and what a "thread," is: "Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile me TWICE in the same thread and you expect people to take you seriously???" Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9 > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be > developed Dummy, the only way to guarantee it is to do it yourself. Waiting for someone else to do it is how you get dragged kicking and screaming into Mesopotamia to tame the savage breast. Besides, it ain't the "fair" market, my little Monkey Friend. What you seem to be advocating is a /free/ market. There ain't no secha thing as a "fair" market. But socialists keep dreaming. SignatureNeoLibertarian "Nobody inherits their civilisation. You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation. Beginning with yourself." --Dennis M. Hammes >> So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we >> could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There ain't no secha thing as a "fair" market. But socialists keep > dreaming. I find it quite funny that a looneytarian would accuse someone else of dreaming. > I find it quite funny that a looneytarian would accuse someone else of > dreaming. That's /Neo/ looneytarian, thanks. And, at least I don't pretend it's possible to have a "fair" market. -- NeoLibertarian >> I find it quite funny that a looneytarian would accuse someone else >> of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And, at least I don't pretend it's possible to have a "fair" market. Just when I thought looneytarians were bad enough, now we have neolooneytarians who combine some the worst political philosophies available. At any rate, regardless of what you call it, fuel prices should accurately reflect costs associated with their use. Why should anyone else have to pay higher taxes to subsidize the roads someone else drives on and why should anyone else have to pay for higher medical costs because some a.shole wants to drive a 3 ton SUV? Even a looneytarian or a neolooneytarian should be asking the same questions assuming they subscribe to the same beliefs as the rest of their ilk. > >> I find it quite funny that a looneytarian would accuse someone else > >> of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a neolooneytarian should be asking the same questions assuming they > subscribe to the same beliefs as the rest of their ilk. You're illiterate, so I shouldn't be cruel. But I can't seem to find where I was arguing any of your abysmal "points". It ain't like America's playing a game that ain't stacked against her. The United States is the only place on earth where petroleum is considered private property. -- NeoLibertarian > > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There ain't no secha thing as a "fair" market. But socialists keep > dreaming. The free market seems to be a bad idea, it doesn't really work. There has to be some way though, some system that nobody has yet thought of. We have to stop thinking there are only a few possible solutions when in reality the amount of different approaches is myriad and the way to truly solve the problem is probably well outside of our normal political spectrum (think in color). The idea I brought up was only one possibility, maybe it does not work, as like I said there are so many approaches. I hope people will think about all these approaches, many undiscovered, and perhaps find one that WILL work. I know we can solve these problems. But what do we want to do to do it? > -- > NeoLibertarian [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Beginning with yourself." > --Dennis M. Hammes > > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be > > developed > > Dummy, the only way to guarantee it is to do it yourself. How would I do that? I cannot change the entire governmental structure of the whole planet on my own. Man, if I could do that I'd just click my fingers and civilization would be different overnight! > Waiting for someone else to do it is how you get dragged kicking and > screaming into Mesopotamia to tame the savage breast. Do you want more people to fight in those unjust petrol wars? You want more people to serve the Evil Empire? Well I don't. I want it over with. Do you think it's GOOD for people to fight in CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY like that? I'd rather resist and be called a "coward" for nobly not fighting in unjust wrong sinful wars. Besides, my idea was just that: an Idea. > > > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > > > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd just click my fingers and civilization would be different > overnight! Poor Princess can't change anything herself? > > Waiting for someone else to do it is how you get dragged kicking and > > screaming into Mesopotamia to tame the savage breast. > > Do you want more people to fight in those unjust petrol wars? No. Which, of course, is a compelling justification for Op: IF. > You want more people to serve the Evil Empire? No, but we're not ready to attack Ali Khamene'i yet, so his Evil Empire will endure for some time yet. > Well I don't. Good for you Princess. Just tell Mommy and Daddy what you want, and I'm sure they'll bring it to her. > I > want it over with. Do you think it's GOOD for people to fight > in CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY like that? Which is why we disbanded the Iraqi regime, n'est pas? > I'd rather resist and be called a "coward" for nobly not fighting > in unjust wrong sinful wars. Noble Coward. Yeah, I've heard about that before. > Besides, my idea was just that: an Idea. Princess is full of ideas. But she can't even be bothered to develop alternative forms of energy for her civilization? Princess thinks it's Mommy's and Daddy's job. SignatureNeoLibertarian "Nobody inherits their civilisation. You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation. Beginning with yourself." --Dennis M. Hammes > > > > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > > > > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Poor Princess can't change anything herself? I'm not a princess, what are you talking about? > > > Waiting for someone else to do it is how you get dragged kicking and > > > screaming into Mesopotamia to tame the savage breast. > > > > Do you want more people to fight in those unjust petrol wars? > > No. Which, of course, is a compelling justification for Op: IF. So you agree that it is a wrong sinful war, then? Then why it is wrong to be a "coward" and resist serving in the military to aid and abet such crimes against humanity? <snip> > Noble Coward. Yeah, I've heard about that before. In other words you think it is GOOD to serve in the military, correct? That it is GOOD to fight in wars that are NOT JUST as you yourself have admitted. Explain the rationale behind this position. > > Besides, my idea was just that: an Idea. > > Princess is full of ideas. But she can't even be bothered to develop > alternative forms of energy for her civilization? I'll develop alternative forms of energy, but I'm no "princess". > Princess thinks it's Mommy's and Daddy's job. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Beginning with yourself." > --Dennis M. Hammes > > > > > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > > > > > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm not a princess, what are you talking about? Princesses love to snap their fingers and "make everything all right." > > > > Waiting for someone else to do it is how you get dragged kicking and > > > > screaming into Mesopotamia to tame the savage breast. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So you agree that it is a wrong sinful war, then? Where did I say that? The compelling justification for Op: IF comes from its PREVENTING the unjust oil war of Jiang Zemin, Ali Khamene'i and Saddam Hussein. > Then why it is > wrong to be a "coward" and resist serving in the military to aid > and abet such crimes against humanity? There's nothing wrong with resisting serving in the military. 'Course, all ya gotta do to "resist" these days is not enlist. Not much challenge in that, is there? If you're a coward, then you're part of that exclusive club called humanity. We're all f.cking sniveling little cowards, hiding behind Mommy's skirts. It's what we do. We only go to war when we HAVE to. Like now. > <snip> > > Noble Coward. Yeah, I've heard about that before. > > In other words you think it is GOOD to serve in the military, correct? It's not good or bad, Cochise. > That it is GOOD to fight in wars that are NOT JUST as you yourself > have admitted. Explain the rationale behind this position. Name one f.cking war that had an unclouded casus belli. Just one f.cking war. f.ck casus belli, anyway. A war is either necessary or it isn't. Op: IF's as about as necessary as they come, Sweety. > > > Besides, my idea was just that: an Idea. > > > > Princess is full of ideas. But she can't even be bothered to develop > > alternative forms of energy for her civilization? > > I'll develop alternative forms of energy, but I'm no "princess". Okay, you're not a Princess. You're just a coward. Who wants to pretend that cowardice is noble. Being a coward myself, I know better. Princess. -- NeoLibertarian > > > > > > So that is what we need. A FAIR MARKET. That's something that if we > > > > > > could do it would guarantee that the new technologies could be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Princesses love to snap their fingers and "make everything all right." So then why assume I was a "princess", even if I said that I could _not_ "snap my finger and make everything all right"? > > > > > Waiting for someone else to do it is how you get dragged kicking and > > > > > screaming into Mesopotamia to tame the savage breast. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Where did I say that? It IS wrong and sinful. Why else did we go in there? That's right, to feed the oil companies. > The compelling justification for Op: IF comes from its PREVENTING the > unjust oil war of Jiang Zemin, Ali Khamene'i and Saddam Hussein. And starting the unjust oil war of America that has killed possibly over half a million _INNOCENT_ people. What'd you make of that? > > Then why it is > > wrong to be a "coward" and resist serving in the military to aid [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > We're all f.cking sniveling little cowards, hiding behind Mommy's > skirts. It's what we do. He he. > We only go to war when we HAVE to. Like now. We did not HAVE to go to war with Iraq, we should NEVER have gone to war. I think the real "coward" here is the one that chooses to go and blame everyone else for their problems instead of themselves. Those that blame Iraq for doing the damage when in reality WE did the damage b/c WE put Saddam in power. > > <snip> > > > Noble Coward. Yeah, I've heard about that before. > > > > In other words you think it is GOOD to serve in the military, correct? > > It's not good or bad, Cochise. The war in Iraq is bad, and fighting in that war is bad too. If I serve in the military, then I get to fight in Iraq. Fighting in Iraq is bad, since the war in Iraq is bad, and by fighting it I would be aiding and abetting it. > > That it is GOOD to fight in wars that are NOT JUST as you yourself > > have admitted. Explain the rationale behind this position. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > f.ck casus belli, anyway. A war is either necessary or it isn't. It was not necessary, and even if it was it FAILED. Miserably. Yeah, we got rid of Saddam. But what do they have now? Anarchy. Chaos. Hmm... > Op: IF's as about as necessary as they come, Sweety. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're just a coward. Who wants to pretend that cowardice is noble. A coward? Hmm. For wanting to develop alternative energy. Odd. > Being a coward myself, I know better. Odd. The real coward is the one who blames others for mistakes he made himself, when he knows full well that he made those mistakes. Thus the USA is a big heap of cowards since they didn't want to admit that they got ol Saddam in power AND armed the Middle East to the teeth AND made it such a huge breeding ground for terrorism! And yet we blame THEM for it? Naahhhh... The United $tate$ of AmeriKKKa is who did it, eh? > Princess. No princess, that's for sure. > -- > NeoLibertarian >We did not HAVE to go to war with Iraq, Sooo... what if the intelligence was _right_, and Saddam _was_ developing a nuclear weapon, and we had _not_ gone in, and he had perfected it and given it to terrorists? If you were guaranteed to be the 1st one to die of a terrorist nuke imported from Iraq by terrorists if there had been the suspected nuke in Iraq, would you still want to do nothing? DPH > >We did not HAVE to go to war with Iraq, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from Iraq by terrorists if there had been the suspected nuke in Iraq, would you > still want to do nothing? Now, now. Everybody knows that Saddam had no nuclear weapons project. Of course, the intelligence reports that Saddam had moved his project out of the country during UNSC Res 687 sanctions has never been corroborated. Certainly, there's no confirmation that he had participated in a joint clandestine nuclear weapons project with Libya, Egypt and Iraq. There's nothing to those reports. Because we KNOW there was no program. But then... On December 13, 2003, Saddam was taken into custody by US military forced in Iraq. On December 19, 2003, in a surprise move, Moammar Qaddafi contacted the UN in order to yield up his secret nuclear weapons project. He invited in IAEA inspectors in order to guarantee verification. In 2005, in an even more surprising move, Hasni Mubarak allows the freest elections in the history of Egypt. This was a surprise because it seemed to usher in an end to his long nurtured plans of having his son, Gamal, succeed him as President for Life of Egypt. Gamal, in 2006, announced Egypt's plans for developing nuclear power for Egypt's growing electrical power needs. He promised the UN that his country would do so transparently. Yes, Moammar had procured the uranium for his secret project from Niger. -- NeoLibertarian >> >We did not HAVE to go to war with Iraq, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >There's nothing to those reports. Because we KNOW there was no program. Not before we invaded, we didn't know. That was the risk at the time - not knowing that. We could have been wrong, and _not_ invading could have cost us a city. DPH >But then... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Yes, Moammar had procured the uranium for his secret project from >Niger. > >We did not HAVE to go to war with Iraq, > > Sooo... what if the intelligence was _right_, and Saddam _was_ developing a > nuclear weapon, and we had _not_ gone in, and he had perfected it and given it > to terrorists? You can't hide a nuke in a terrorist's backpack, Dave ! > If you were guaranteed to be the 1st one to die of a terrorist nuke imported > from Iraq by terrorists if there had been the suspected nuke in Iraq, would you > still want to do nothing? Iraq has never has any nukes Dave, you're living in a fantasy world. Graham >> >We did not HAVE to go to war with Iraq, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You can't hide a nuke in a terrorist's backpack, Dave ! Don't have to. Stick it in a truck, drive it into the city. And _some_ nukes _can_ be hidden in a backpack, although those are way more sophisticated than a Saddam would have been building. >> If you were guaranteed to be the 1st one to die of a terrorist nuke imported >> from Iraq by terrorists if there had been the suspected nuke in Iraq, would you >> still want to do nothing? > >Iraq has never has any nukes Dave, you're living in a fantasy world. We didn't _know_ that, tho, so the point is that _not_ invading and making sure would have been a _huge_ risk. DPH >Graham > Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Just something I was curious about... Simple. Stop all the subsidies, oil depletion allowances, and whatever else goes on. Then charge appropriately for pollution, cleanup, environmental damage, etc. A recent radio program (don't remember_ indicated that gasoline would then be about $10-11 per gallon. At that price, ANY alternative would be extremely competitive. >> Hi. >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >then be about $10-11 per gallon. At that price, ANY alternative would >be extremely competitive. I suspect that the government would have to tax the alternatives as well. SignatureWherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS "There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is impossible." -- Jack Vance "Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant. "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net > >A recent radio program (don't remember_ indicated that gasoline would > >then be about $10-11 per gallon. At that price, ANY alternative would > >be extremely competitive. > > I suspect that the government would have to tax the alternatives as > well. Not until the alternatives were well established, and the money was necessary to maintain infrastructure, replacing the money that would formerly come from gas/oil. Right now, the governments are--albeit timidly, providing support for some alternatives. >> >A recent radio program (don't remember_ indicated that gasoline would >> >then be about $10-11 per gallon. At that price, ANY alternative would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >formerly come from gas/oil. Right now, the governments are--albeit >timidly, providing support for some alternatives. Federal, state and local governments make between $.40 and $.50 per gallon of gasoline sold. That is around $58 billion per year into government coffers. I don't see the governments wanting to decrease this. SignatureWherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS "There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is impossible." -- Jack Vance "Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant. "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net > Federal, state and local governments make between $.40 and $.50 per > gallon of gasoline sold. That is around $58 billion per year into > government coffers. I don't see the governments wanting to decrease > this. Since governments use taxation to modify public behavior anyway, I'd just as soon see gradual, but inexorable increases in fuel taxes. BUT, I'd want to see a dollar or dollar decrease in other taxes to compensate. The gummint doesn't need more dollars. It needs different dollars. websurf sez: "Since governments use taxation to modify public behavior anyway, I'd just as soon see gradual, but inexorable increases in fuel taxes..." _________________________________ Yeah! I can see those speakeasy filling stations now. Kids sneaking around the neighborhood after dark with 5 gallon growlers...submarine tankers slipping up to the coast at night. >> Federal, state and local governments make between $.40 and $.50 per >> gallon of gasoline sold. That is around $58 billion per year into [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >compensate. The gummint doesn't need more dollars. It needs different >dollars. Actually the government feels that it needs more dollars and it will take what ever it feels it can get away with. SignatureWherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS "There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is impossible." -- Jack Vance "Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant. "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net > > Federal, state and local governments make between $.40 and $.50 per > > gallon of gasoline sold. That is around $58 billion per year into [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > compensate. The gummint doesn't need more dollars. It needs different > dollars. In other words, the two of you want to make it difficult for low income families to support themselves. > In other words, the two of you want to make it difficult for low income > families to support themselves. If we do nothing different, in a few decades income level may not make much difference. Jungle subsistence farmers may be on top. More likely, we'll do what we've been doing. Welfare, assistance, etc. > > Hi. > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > then be about $10-11 per gallon. At that price, ANY alternative would > be extremely competitive. And a fast food hamburger wil;l be $20. Store brand soda will be $3 a can. A gallon of milk will be $20. >> > Hi. >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > can. A > gallon of milk will be $20. How do you figure that, Moron? Fuel prices in Europe are around $8 per gal and the prices for all the things you mentioned are about the same as here. >>> > Hi. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > gal and the prices for all the things you mentioned are about the same > as here. Europe is a much more compact place. They also have a good rail infrastructure. How far do you have to drive for groceries? I have to do about 60 miles to visit a real grocery store. >> > Hi. >> > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > A > gallon of milk will be $20. And then pigs will fly around Texas talking to other crackheads like you. > > Simple. Stop all the subsidies, oil depletion allowances, and whatever > > else goes on. Then charge appropriately for pollution, cleanup, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And a fast food hamburger wil;l be $20. Store brand soda will be $3 a can. A > gallon of milk will be $20. Not too likely. I'm hoping for $5-6 per gallon. At that point even many Americans would conserve a bit. However, you would see changes. More things would be done locally. Your lettuce might be grown somewhere besides Yuma AZ. We have an economy that is highly specialized, and requires huge amounts of energy to transport things from one concentrated source to a dispersed market. As fuel went up, you'd see changes in the way things are done. Right now we waste the fuel because it's so dang cheap. If world fuel prices went up, the idea of shipping things to/from China for cheap labor would fizzle. If things get bad, you won't see kiwi fruits from New Zealand in your local market much, if at all. But you would see many small, local dairies for instance. If things got REALLY bad, you'd have your own cow, since there wouldn't be refrigeration. > > Hi. > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > else goes on. Then charge appropriately for pollution, cleanup, > environmental damage, etc. In other words, just make it incredibly expensive. What a way to try and make capitalism do something it cannot do. > A recent radio program (don't remember_ indicated that gasoline would > then be about $10-11 per gallon. At that price, ANY alternative would > be extremely competitive. Don't worry, it'll get there anyway as we pass peak oil and slide into the inevitable decline side of the Hubbert curve. >Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >increasing carbon dioxide emissions or the threats to national security >from importing oil. A load of crap ginned up to make their case. What about the cost of NOT using that oil to transport things? How many would die if we all stopped driving and shipping medicines, or shipping food or growing food, and on and on. The law of supply and demand takes care of the pricing without gvt interference as long as all users are on an equal footing. That is, all the power producers held to the same level of pollution, all the car drivers held to the same level of pollution, etc. > Because the price of oil is artificially low, >significant private investment in alternative technologies that provide [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Just something I was curious about... If you want a fair market tell Rep Tom Udall to get teh gvt to stop passing tax breaks for this that and the other industry. Milk is three times what it should cost thanks to the gvt. Sugar is twice what it should cost. Oranges generally cost more then the free market price due to gvt growing orders. Everyone is all for a "fair market" when it suits the political agenda and they get to say what a fair market is. You want alternate sources of oil? There's hundreds of years worth up in the Dakota's and northern tier in oil shale. It would sell for $3.00 a gallon. Who's going to invest when they don't know from one day to the next what the gvt subsidies will be for alternatives that are wasteful, like ethanol. The free market would be fine if you could keep the gvt OUT of it. > >Hi. > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > pollution, all the car drivers held to the same level of pollution, > etc. What if we reorganized our civilization so that transport was short enough and easy enough to be fueled by 100% renewable resources alone? And what happens when the oil is yanked out from under our feet due to it's own depletion, something that WILL happen with CERTAINTY. And it's much sooner than you may think -- 50 years to total exhaustion, 25 years to half of present production and total economic wreckage. > > Because the price of oil is artificially low, > >significant private investment in alternative technologies that provide [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > when it suits the political agenda and they get to say what a fair > market is. But would a _truly_ fair market solve the problem? > You want alternate sources of oil? There's hundreds of years worth up > in the Dakota's and northern tier in oil shale. It would sell for > $3.00 a gallon. Who's going to invest when they don't know from one > day to the next what the gvt subsidies will be for alternatives that > are wasteful, like ethanol. The free market would be fine if you > could keep the gvt OUT of it. I want alternate sources of _energy_, not oil, as oil is a finite resource that will exhaust soon. The oil shales will last hundreds of years at _current rates of consumption_, but when you factor in the _growth_ that the stupid capitalist economy runs on... >What if we reorganized our civilization so that transport was short >enough and easy enough to be fueled by 100% renewable resources >alone? Is this before or after we get angels in the form of kings to govern us? >And what happens when the oil is yanked out from under our >feet due to it's own depletion, something that WILL happen with >CERTAINTY. And it's much sooner than you may think -- 50 years to >total exhaustion, 25 years to half of present production and total >economic wreckage. I think the Club of Rome said something similar in 1972. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> >Hi. >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >total exhaustion, 25 years to half of present production and total >economic wreckage. That sounds good and would work if you and everyone else started your life at age 23 and knew where you were going to work the same moment you bought your house. But by age 26, you may move to another job 25 miles further away. Do you think it's a workable solution for everyone to move every time they get a different job? What if that job doesn't work out? What if there is no affordable housing near your job, and on and on. If you look at pretty much any economically developed country they all share some fairly common traits and one of the predominant ones is that people want to have personal transportation if it's at all feasible. Sure, there are places like NYC where the cost may be so high it's not feasible but that's a fairly small portion of the total population of the country. It would be easy to reorganize civilization if we only had to deal with a few million people. Otherwise the more or less free market seems to work better then "central planning". >> > Because the price of oil is artificially low, >> >significant private investment in alternative technologies that provide [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >But would a _truly_ fair market solve the problem? There is no such thing as a Truly free market, that's why any group of people that exceeds a few thousand people always winds up forming a gvt. The trick is to keep control of the gvt. Something the USA citizenry isn't doing too well with at the moment. >> You want alternate sources of oil? There's hundreds of years worth up >> in the Dakota's and northern tier in oil shale. It would sell for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >_current rates of consumption_, but when you factor in the _growth_ >that the stupid capitalist economy runs on... We've made some pretty significant advancements in the last couple hundred years. If the oil gets us another couple hundred we should have some much better energy sources by then. The ultimate solution will be some sort of solar based energy device that returns 100's of times the amount of energy output over it's life compared to the energy required to build it. Once we get to that point I think our energy problem will become fairly insignificant in comparison to the population problem we will have in 200 years. Actually, ALL of our problems stem not so much from limited resources but from too many people. Trouble is, no one wants to volunteer to be one of the ones who isn't here. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.