Controls should be in place because humans are based off of greed. Our economy is also based on greed and necessity.
Either way, I'm not totally against controls, just make them fair. Standards for automobiles are fine because they don't necessarily hit everyone in the pocket book and they are evenly applied. High gas prices for the purpose of controlling the citizens' behavior is NOT. First, it only controls those who can't afford to work around it, and second, it punishes those who can least afford it, most.
As long as the US is importing the majority of our fuel from the most politically unstable region in the world, our nation's stability and ability to defend itself is seriously compromised.
And that's important to me. Right now, the US is in a seriously compromised position since we have to kneel at the behest of the middle east, and take it up the backside from the Chinese who are loaning us the money to fund the Iraq war. Bingo! That is why I choose drive a four banger. But again, that is my choice. No one forced to buy that car, I did it because of the reasons you mentioned. And for the record, no one could have FORCED me to buy that car. Don't give me some bullshit about caribou or ice caps. Give me the truth and tell me how it really effects my life.
I support rising fuel costs, with taxes if necessary. You know why? Because I want control. Not of you - you are an insignificant twat I could care squat about - but over myself. I should have to pay more for gas because you have no self control. Should alcohol be illegal because rednecks beat their wives when they are drunk?
Not a half bad translation, except for this part:
The health of the environment must be sacrificed for some people to scrape by day to day. They work damn hard at miserable jobs just to give their children bread on the table. Life isn't easy and he resents people who want to teach lessons and force him to piss his daughter's college fund into the gas tank. The environment is in no danger. Those that keep telling me about it are not doing anything about themselves, except telling ME how to act. That tells me that the likes of AlGore don't believe it. They just want to control the way I live. If Al Gore stops flying in private planes, starts using the sail as his primary means of transportation and moves out of his huge-ass house and into a 100% organic, carbon neutral home, them I'll pay attention.
And even if the environment were in danger... what is more important; freedom, or the environment? If you say the environment, why? Why is the environment more important than terrorism, for example? No one here wants to give up their freedom to fight terrorism, why is the environment more of a problem? I've seen people die from terrorism. Global warming hasn't killed anyone. Do I need to break out a Ben Franklin quote here and substitute "cool air" for "security"?
So hell yeah! Give me my cheap, locally produced gas so I can live my life the way the founding fathers wanted and so many died for, FREE! wow. what a troll. but just in case you're serious, reading your third paragraph, i wonder who's "a selfish son of a bitch who loves the idea of forcing other people to bend to your will, regardless of the cost." If saying that I want to live my life the way I choose, and not let those decisions made by people who live thousands of miles away is trolling... Then yeah! I'm a troll. Looking at our founding fathers, who must also must be trolls, then I'd say I'm in pretty good company. I guess the repressed people of world who are not allowed to make decisions for themselves might take some comfort in knowing that they are not trolls, but I prefer to be free. (as in speech)
So you can give me liberty or kiss my trolling ASS!
Sounds good to me. I'm all for artificially limiting the supply of gasoline to force people to improve their efficiency and seek out alternative fuels. I hope they don't build anymore oil refineries, ever. That's because you are a selfish son of a bitch who loves the idea of forcing other people to bend to your will, regardless of the cost. You see, some of don't live on a farm or in our parent's basement. Some of us have to drive our cars that use fuel to work, so we can drive those same cars that use fuel to the grocery store where we buy food that was grown using equipment that used MORE fuel so we can feed our families. I guess you either make too much money or live with your parents. Either way, you have no idea what money means. Money is not something given for that X-box game. Money is not something that is inherited to most people. For most people money is not something that we have so much of that other people will pay us enough money to survive just so that they can HOLD our money. Nope. Money is my blood, sweat, tears and time away from home and family doing meaningless bullshit for someone who has enough money to pay me to do it because they don't want to do it themselves. Money is what keeps me away from my little girl so much that I only hear about the little milestones that she does every day. THAT is what money is. Money is the ability to pay my bills, keep the lights on, the house warm, a roof over my family's head and food for the table. It is what keeps us alive. Money is NOT a tool for people like you to use change my behavior you don't like the way I live MY life. It is not some political tool for pieces of shit like you to use to control the behavior of the working stiffs of this country.
Look, I'd all about saving the environment if I it had never changed before. If the earth had a history of a constant temperature that was suddenly changing, I'd worry. If I saw the people that shouted the loudest about the dangers of climate change riding a bike and living in mud huts, I'd be nervous. However, that is not the case. These people screaming the loudest are the same people with houses that are larger that the block I live on and travel private jets and limousines to a conference where they spread FUD about how the world is being destroyed unless we act NOW. If they don't believe it, why should I? Personally, I'm freezing my ass off. We've had record cold snaps these past few years and extremely mild summers. Sorry, but my thermometer is a better gauge of the temperature at my house than some ice core from Greenland!
I drive an efficient car because I don't want my money going to people that want to kill me and my family. We could take that a step further if shit-heads like you would stop protesting every domestic energy source we have. Nuclear, coal, wind, hydro, and yes, OIL, have all been protested by people like you. Each has their own reasons. Nuclear is dangerous (it's not), wind kills birds (it doesn't), coal is dirty (it doesn't have to be), hydro interrupts the spawning habits of salmon (I don't give a shit), and oil might interrupt the sex habits of caribou that live 2000 miles away from anyone (it hasn't any where else... and I don't give a shit. I've never visited a caribou and have no plans to. They could all die and would make 0% difference in my life!). I figure it's not about all these bullshit reasons you guys spout off. It's all about control. You and your do what you do to control people, for nothing more than the satisfaction, because you have to live by the same restrictions you put on the rest of us. Your lust for power makes that all worth it, I guess.
So hell yeah! Give me my cheap, locally produced gas so I can live my life the way the founding fathers wanted and so many died for, FREE!
Really? Has Microsoft really made back 5 years of development effort from Vista sales? I find it hard to believe with most sales coming from bundled (i.e. low profit) type sales. Certainly not yet, but they will. Just like MS didn't make back the money they poured into NT3.51 from sales of NT3.51. However, the tech that came from all those R&D dollars for 3.51 found its way into NT4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP and now into Vista. Sure, it's been tweaked a bit for each version, but it's not like MS is reinventing the wheel with each OS release. They base each new OS on the last until some major change is required, like the move from WinME to Win2k.
So have they made back the money they spent on R&D for Vista? No, and probably won't make it back from Vista sales. But they will make it back eventually on some future software release that uses the same tech.
You've been to North Korea? What was that like? As for me, I'm talking other first world countries, like France, Italy, Germany, and the U.K. Sorry, but NK is still a bit left of places like Saudi Arabia, although given the choice, I think I'd prefer the mid-east. At least they are not starving to death. Besides, NK is Communist. It is what happens when an entire population has to give up everything for the "common good".
I've spent some time in other countries, so I realize that what is 'left-wing' here is actually centrist to the rest of the world. Our centrists are their right wing, and our right wing are their off-the-charts loonies. That's awesome! In the places I've been to abroad, I was a far-left-wing-tree-hugging-hippie-wackjob! I'm basically all over the map politically. I'm pro-life, pro-pot, pro-censorship for kids and stuff they have access to, pro-porn for adults, anti-tax, pro-states-rights, anti-affirmative-action and pro equal rights to the near-extreme (men can't work as Hooter's waitstaff). The type of people that are centrist here would be considered candidates for execution in the places I've been.
That's interesting. You're implying that anarchists can't want peace or justice? When I see someone with their face covered throw a brick through the window at McDonald's... I'd have to say NO, they don't want either. Sure, they COULD want peace and justice just like I COULD like hairy, fat, sweaty women with missing teeth. COULD does not always mean DOES.
They cover their face to escape justice and the violent protest doesn't speak well of their desire for peace.
The parent to this said:
Yeah, we should get rid of surveillance cameras in banks and jewelry stores, too. It was modded into oblivion because it is an excellent point and the moderator who down-modded it is not smart enough to come up with an intelligent response. This is what happens to truth that a rogue mod doesn't agree with; it gets hidden and the speaker gets silenced. We can't let the facts get in the way of our political opinions.
Oh ArcherB, you always crack me up. I can barely converse with you I'm laughing so hard. Guess what? The NYTimes is a right wing paper. It caters to the part of the owning class that suffers from liberal guilt. There are no left wing daily papers left in the US. Sorry your sense of right/left has been so skewed by recent history. You might want to educate yourself as to the political spectrum the wider world goes by, if only to get a better grasp on your enemy.
WOW! If you consider the NYT to be right wing, I'm afraid of what you might thing is middle of the road or even left wing. I thought that once you went that further left than NYT, you completed the whole Latitude Loop and ended back where you started!
What bullshit. Do you routinely ignore all evidence that contradicts your world-view? Look here. I'd recommend you play by the rules or move out of the country, and if we vote a tax increase on your ass, you will pay, leave, or find yourself in jail.
NYTimes? How about a source that is not so far left that it makes Stalin look like Reagan! But for fun, let's look at his graph. It shows a slowing economy well before "Bush's Tax Cuts", completely ignores any other economic or geopolitical factors (9-11-01 ring any bells? How about "Contract with America" or welfare reform?) Sorry, like every other NYT article, that one took carefully selected facts and pieced them together to fit a political agenda.
Facts are that we experienced stagflation when taxes were at 70%. Now that taxes are around half that, we have seen economic growth nearly every single year since 1980. Rather than reading communist rags that tell you what to think and learn to form your own opinions. You should start by doing a little research on what makes economies tick. Here's a hint: Higher taxes mean less of it.
The rich benefit more from each dollar of public infrastructure than the poor. You get a highway to visit your Aunt Mary, the CEO gets a nationwide distribution network fully maintained and ready for service without his interference.
Seeing as how I'm poor and I am purchasing what the CEO is distributing, I'd say that I am benefiting as well, along with every other consumer. Also seeing as I have to drive to see my Aunt Mary while the CEO takes a private plane from a private airport, I benefit even more! Add that to the fact that the CEO and his "ilk" are paying for over 90% of that road (not to mention my salary, half my Social Security and health insurance), I guess we owe him some gratitude as well.
We don't need to do away with taxes, we need to raise the maximum tax rate back up to 70% like it was before Reagan took office, and at the same time stop funding for ridiculous things like farm subsidies.
70%? I remember that. That was the Carter years (the 70s coincidentally). I remember that was when I learned the definitions of "The Misery Index" and "Stagflation".
Wait? You want to bring that BACK?!!? I included links so you can read up on these terms. Maybe a little reality will fog up those rose colored glasses you have on. In the mean time, if you want to pay 70% tax, be my guest. However, I'd recommend that you keep your hands out of my pocket and stop trying to take food from my baby's mouth!
GOOD. That's the whole point of congestion charges. I am a motorist So it's OK for the government to force me to take the bus, but carrying an ID with federal standards, or having to require proof of age to purchase a violent video game, or having your bags searched before boarding a plane... is BAD.
I've always wondered about the same thing. Rather than beam in a team of commandos down to the surface to kill a bunch of guys, why not just teleport the bad guys off the starboard bow?
My other thoughts: Using it as a cloning/copy tool, (which was done in a few episodes). "Counselor, why don't you go down to the teleporter and copy yourself so we can have a threesome?" or "Scotty! I need you to copy these 20g bars of latinum for me. I need to go back to the surface and tip one of those green strippers." Using the teleport as a backup tool. "The captain is dead again. What is the latest tape backup? Do we have one backed up BEFORE he became such a bitch?" Medicine. Why use a scalpel to remove a liver when you can just beam it out? Why do they still have disease when they can just beam everything BUT the virus back to the ship?
Yeah, we spend too much time pondering things like Star Trek. Then again, I guess that's what made it such a great show; it makes you THINK!
Why, because of the absurd notion that you should get what you pay for - and vice versa? Flat pricing just means that someone like me - who isn't downloading movies all day - is helping pay the bills of people who are.
Have you considered dial-up? You know you can save money that way and not have to stress over paying for my downloading Linux distro's and sharing baby pictures.
When did I say that it was bad for the federal government to mandate driver's license requirements? I'm just a bit confused about why you've brought this up. Unless I've said something inadvertent, it seems like a transparent attempt to change the subject.
Which would surprise me, since none of my points are incontrovertible.
You didn't. I just got off a post where everyone was saying that the government is trying to control the citizens because of Real ID (setting standards for ID's across all 50 states). Then I see this post, where the government wants to control appliances in your home (without a warrant), and everyone thinks it's a good idea. WTF?
Would you feel differently about this plan if your power company decided, as a private entity, that this plan was more sensible than building a mammoth upgrade to the grid to handle the day or two every year when demand overwhelmed supply? If installing such a device was just part of the terms and conditions of being their customer? If so, why the difference? It seems that, whether this is a public or a private move, this is a reasonable reaction to the situation.
Utility companies are not private entities. They are utilities. They are monopolies with government regulations. They could not come into my home and turn down the thermostat without the government's permission. Now if I had a choice of utility companies, and one wanted to do this and the other didn't, then fine. I'd go with the company that stayed out of my home.
There are other ways of limiting power consumption. The number one way is price. As demand rises, so should price. As price rises, so will supply. Increased supply means decreased demand. Decreased demand means decreased price. But because CA has decided that no new power plants are allowed, supply is static while demand goes up. Demand goes up, so should price. Price can't go up so we have shortages. Welcome to CA, land of the brownouts!
It's called the law of supply and demand. It is working for all 49 other states without the government telling how I live in my own home! Release the restrictions on new power plants and the problem will solve itself!
So tell me. Why is it good for the state government to be able to regulate the temperature in my home and bad for the federal government to mandate drivers license requirements. Why is one a violation of my rights and privacy and all about controlling me and what CA is doing NOT?
Here's the thing: high prices reduce demand by making consumers say, "Maybe I don't really need [now expensive item]." But with necessities, people don't say that
If it is such a necessity, then the government probably shouldn't have the power to cut it off at their will. It should be my choice to say, "Maybe I'll set the thermostat to 75 rather than 72 today and take a cold shower if I get hot." A high utility bill helps me make that decision, but it is still my decision to make.
Again... build more feckin power plants and the whole problem solves itself!
This seems like a reasonable idea if there's not enough power to go around. No, a reasonable idea would be to raise prices to reduce demand until you can build some friggin power plants! This is what happens when you dick with the free market, it stops working!
Slashdot Mirror
Either way, I'm not totally against controls, just make them fair. Standards for automobiles are fine because they don't necessarily hit everyone in the pocket book and they are evenly applied. High gas prices for the purpose of controlling the citizens' behavior is NOT. First, it only controls those who can't afford to work around it, and second, it punishes those who can least afford it, most.
And even if the environment were in danger... what is more important; freedom, or the environment? If you say the environment, why? Why is the environment more important than terrorism, for example? No one here wants to give up their freedom to fight terrorism, why is the environment more of a problem? I've seen people die from terrorism. Global warming hasn't killed anyone. Do I need to break out a Ben Franklin quote here and substitute "cool air" for "security"?
So you can give me liberty or kiss my trolling ASS!
Look, I'd all about saving the environment if I it had never changed before. If the earth had a history of a constant temperature that was suddenly changing, I'd worry. If I saw the people that shouted the loudest about the dangers of climate change riding a bike and living in mud huts, I'd be nervous. However, that is not the case. These people screaming the loudest are the same people with houses that are larger that the block I live on and travel private jets and limousines to a conference where they spread FUD about how the world is being destroyed unless we act NOW. If they don't believe it, why should I? Personally, I'm freezing my ass off. We've had record cold snaps these past few years and extremely mild summers. Sorry, but my thermometer is a better gauge of the temperature at my house than some ice core from Greenland!
I drive an efficient car because I don't want my money going to people that want to kill me and my family. We could take that a step further if shit-heads like you would stop protesting every domestic energy source we have. Nuclear, coal, wind, hydro, and yes, OIL, have all been protested by people like you. Each has their own reasons. Nuclear is dangerous (it's not), wind kills birds (it doesn't), coal is dirty (it doesn't have to be), hydro interrupts the spawning habits of salmon (I don't give a shit), and oil might interrupt the sex habits of caribou that live 2000 miles away from anyone (it hasn't any where else... and I don't give a shit. I've never visited a caribou and have no plans to. They could all die and would make 0% difference in my life!). I figure it's not about all these bullshit reasons you guys spout off. It's all about control. You and your do what you do to control people, for nothing more than the satisfaction, because you have to live by the same restrictions you put on the rest of us. Your lust for power makes that all worth it, I guess.
So hell yeah! Give me my cheap, locally produced gas so I can live my life the way the founding fathers wanted and so many died for, FREE!
So have they made back the money they spent on R&D for Vista? No, and probably won't make it back from Vista sales. But they will make it back eventually on some future software release that uses the same tech.
They cover their face to escape justice and the violent protest doesn't speak well of their desire for peace.
Oh ArcherB, you always crack me up. I can barely converse with you I'm laughing so hard. Guess what? The NYTimes is a right wing paper. It caters to the part of the owning class that suffers from liberal guilt. There are no left wing daily papers left in the US. Sorry your sense of right/left has been so skewed by recent history. You might want to educate yourself as to the political spectrum the wider world goes by, if only to get a better grasp on your enemy.
WOW! If you consider the NYT to be right wing, I'm afraid of what you might thing is middle of the road or even left wing. I thought that once you went that further left than NYT, you completed the whole Latitude Loop and ended back where you started!
What bullshit. Do you routinely ignore all evidence that contradicts your world-view? Look here. I'd recommend you play by the rules or move out of the country, and if we vote a tax increase on your ass, you will pay, leave, or find yourself in jail.
NYTimes? How about a source that is not so far left that it makes Stalin look like Reagan! But for fun, let's look at his graph. It shows a slowing economy well before "Bush's Tax Cuts", completely ignores any other economic or geopolitical factors (9-11-01 ring any bells? How about "Contract with America" or welfare reform?) Sorry, like every other NYT article, that one took carefully selected facts and pieced them together to fit a political agenda.
Facts are that we experienced stagflation when taxes were at 70%. Now that taxes are around half that, we have seen economic growth nearly every single year since 1980. Rather than reading communist rags that tell you what to think and learn to form your own opinions. You should start by doing a little research on what makes economies tick. Here's a hint: Higher taxes mean less of it.
The rich benefit more from each dollar of public infrastructure than the poor. You get a highway to visit your Aunt Mary, the CEO gets a nationwide distribution network fully maintained and ready for service without his interference.
Seeing as how I'm poor and I am purchasing what the CEO is distributing, I'd say that I am benefiting as well, along with every other consumer. Also seeing as I have to drive to see my Aunt Mary while the CEO takes a private plane from a private airport, I benefit even more! Add that to the fact that the CEO and his "ilk" are paying for over 90% of that road (not to mention my salary, half my Social Security and health insurance), I guess we owe him some gratitude as well.
We don't need to do away with taxes, we need to raise the maximum tax rate back up to 70% like it was before Reagan took office, and at the same time stop funding for ridiculous things like farm subsidies.
70%? I remember that. That was the Carter years (the 70s coincidentally). I remember that was when I learned the definitions of "The Misery Index" and "Stagflation".
Wait? You want to bring that BACK?!!? I included links so you can read up on these terms. Maybe a little reality will fog up those rose colored glasses you have on. In the mean time, if you want to pay 70% tax, be my guest. However, I'd recommend that you keep your hands out of my pocket and stop trying to take food from my baby's mouth!
Anyone care to explain the logic here?
I've always wondered about the same thing. Rather than beam in a team of commandos down to the surface to kill a bunch of guys, why not just teleport the bad guys off the starboard bow?
My other thoughts:
Using it as a cloning/copy tool, (which was done in a few episodes). "Counselor, why don't you go down to the teleporter and copy yourself so we can have a threesome?" or "Scotty! I need you to copy these 20g bars of latinum for me. I need to go back to the surface and tip one of those green strippers."
Using the teleport as a backup tool. "The captain is dead again. What is the latest tape backup? Do we have one backed up BEFORE he became such a bitch?"
Medicine. Why use a scalpel to remove a liver when you can just beam it out? Why do they still have disease when they can just beam everything BUT the virus back to the ship?
Yeah, we spend too much time pondering things like Star Trek. Then again, I guess that's what made it such a great show; it makes you THINK!
How about really giving customers unlimited bandwidth? If they lack the infrastructure to support what they claim, then they should get better lines.
That's just it! They DO have the infrastructure in my area. I never experience slow downs due to TW's pipes getting flooded.
This is merely a money grab!
Why, because of the absurd notion that you should get what you pay for - and vice versa? Flat pricing just means that someone like me - who isn't downloading movies all day - is helping pay the bills of people who are.
Have you considered dial-up? You know you can save money that way and not have to stress over paying for my downloading Linux distro's and sharing baby pictures.
As one of those 5% people, if they roll this out in my area, I'll become a DSL subscriber!
When did I say that it was bad for the federal government to mandate driver's license requirements? I'm just a bit confused about why you've brought this up. Unless I've said something inadvertent, it seems like a transparent attempt to change the subject.
Which would surprise me, since none of my points are incontrovertible.
You didn't. I just got off a post where everyone was saying that the government is trying to control the citizens because of Real ID (setting standards for ID's across all 50 states). Then I see this post, where the government wants to control appliances in your home (without a warrant), and everyone thinks it's a good idea. WTF?
Would you feel differently about this plan if your power company decided, as a private entity, that this plan was more sensible than building a mammoth upgrade to the grid to handle the day or two every year when demand overwhelmed supply? If installing such a device was just part of the terms and conditions of being their customer? If so, why the difference? It seems that, whether this is a public or a private move, this is a reasonable reaction to the situation.
Utility companies are not private entities. They are utilities. They are monopolies with government regulations. They could not come into my home and turn down the thermostat without the government's permission. Now if I had a choice of utility companies, and one wanted to do this and the other didn't, then fine. I'd go with the company that stayed out of my home.
There are other ways of limiting power consumption. The number one way is price. As demand rises, so should price. As price rises, so will supply. Increased supply means decreased demand. Decreased demand means decreased price. But because CA has decided that no new power plants are allowed, supply is static while demand goes up. Demand goes up, so should price. Price can't go up so we have shortages. Welcome to CA, land of the brownouts!
It's called the law of supply and demand. It is working for all 49 other states without the government telling how I live in my own home! Release the restrictions on new power plants and the problem will solve itself!
So tell me. Why is it good for the state government to be able to regulate the temperature in my home and bad for the federal government to mandate drivers license requirements.
Why is one a violation of my rights and privacy and all about controlling me and what CA is doing NOT?
Here's the thing: high prices reduce demand by making consumers say, "Maybe I don't really need [now expensive item]." But with necessities, people don't say that
If it is such a necessity, then the government probably shouldn't have the power to cut it off at their will. It should be my choice to say, "Maybe I'll set the thermostat to 75 rather than 72 today and take a cold shower if I get hot." A high utility bill helps me make that decision, but it is still my decision to make.
Again... build more feckin power plants and the whole problem solves itself!