like he answered any real questions.... when he explains why he promised to be transparent...and hasnt been, when he explains how he was going to leave medical marijuana state alone...yet has busted more state legally run places than bush has, when he explains how bushes spending was unamerican but his double spending is ok, than ill listen. Until then, he is just another politician, not worth listening to
The problem is if we remove the subsidies than the cost will be upwards of 8 bucks a gallon, which is simply not affordable for 50% of america.
But lets just say I do agree to that concession, I would only agree to it as long as eliminate the spending totally, meaning we are not shifting the payout to other industries and use the money that was going to the oil companies to pay down the national debt.
for that to be the only choice we would have to believe that WE (2012 people, not humans as a species ) are going to do THAT much damage. I disagree, there are many other choices, like allowing tech to mature to the point of replacing old tech, Should we have raised the price of the typewriter to force the adaptation of the computer? hell no, and the same is true with fuel.
how is putting gas in my car, that damages the engine, in turn making my car that used to last 15-20 years only last 10 "helping"
so while I may be "polluting less" in the short term, i need to buy a new car sooner (along with hundreds of millions of other humans so, I ask you this. What is the cost/benifit/polution ration of using a fuel that will kill your car faster, gives you less power per gallon of gas (some 20%less efficient than regular unleaded) and therefore a car that runs for 100K miles, will use MORE fuel that is eth based than gas based
my issue is not with future times, my issue is with forcing high cost alternatives early rather than allowing them to mature.
The issue I have (and many others) is the forced change being implemented at a what I would call a rushed time frame.
the planet is billions of years old, humans have been here for a few hundred thousand years, in one form or another. We have gone from fully covered with ice to other climates over the ages. We happen to live in an ideal climate for us right now and it makes sense to want to keep it that way.
The earth, even if we "ruin it" has an uncanny way of recycling itself over the years, the problem as I see it is that some humans tend to have a higher self worth of themselves than they deserve, especially in the entire earth timeline.
recycling as much as possible is great, renewables are great. BUT ad this is a big but, why do we have to raise the prices, or outlaw some forms of fuel or other things to force adaption? When the cars came around 100 years ago and put the horse and buggy out of business, did the government force them out of business? did they say that you can still have a horse and buggy if you want, but we are going to charge you more money for using it over a car? NO! when the technology was mature enough it took over.
I believe that with enough time wind and solar and nuke power and others will rid of us oil, but until that day comes, there is NO good reason to charge people more money for living, because raising the cost of gas artificially to get people to drive less doesnt hurt those who can afford it, only those who are lower middle class and poor.
if we go that far than we need to go further back to clinton ith his high risk home loans he forced the banks to make to people the banks knew could never pay for.
on te same argument then, would you be ok, if you were running the slaughterhouse, allowing protesers to open your gates at night, letting your cows out and not allowing you to butcher them? (providing food for others, and money to pay your bills for yourself) I would consider that no different than stealing if you wanna take it to that level.
The easy solution is too obvious to ever be implemented. Loser pays costs. Make every lawsuit a loser pays costs (in some cases plus $$) we will have less thaan 1/2 the year lawsuits overnight
my uncle is a police officer, his first time through it happened to him.He ended up at a better station making more money a year down the road, but he was in the top 5 of the class, didnt get the 1 of 5 jobs meanwhile the only black man to apply, who finished outside the top 20, got a job. the only hispanic man who finished outside the top 30 got a job
Call it what you want, but until the people are judged by their actions, and not by the color of their skin, it is racist.
To me, everything you just said, is in fact a racist comment.
when person X cant get a scholarship to a college, eventhough their grades are higher than person Y, that is racism. when person X does not get a job as a police officer when they finish 3rd in the class, yet person Y -who finishes 15th in the class does get the job - that is racism
sure "white people" who have been dead for 100 years held "black people" who have also been dead for 100 years as slaves. but that was then, There is no reason "black person" should get anything special from "white person" today because neither of them had anything to do with slavery
Slashdot Mirror
i dont know, id prefer it to be orangey-majenta thursday
like he answered any real questions.... when he explains why he promised to be transparent...and hasnt been, when he explains how he was going to leave medical marijuana state alone...yet has busted more state legally run places than bush has, when he explains how bushes spending was unamerican but his double spending is ok, than ill listen. Until then, he is just another politician, not worth listening to
The problem is if we remove the subsidies than the cost will be upwards of 8 bucks a gallon, which is simply not affordable for 50% of america.
But lets just say I do agree to that concession, I would only agree to it as long as eliminate the spending totally, meaning we are not shifting the payout to other industries and use the money that was going to the oil companies to pay down the national debt.
im sorry but if you eat a match... you deserve what you get...
call me heartless if you want, but we eed some more darwinism going on
As someone i see post often's sig says
/troll are not the same as "i disagree"
flamebait
for that to be the only choice we would have to believe that WE (2012 people, not humans as a species ) are going to do THAT much damage. I disagree, there are many other choices, like allowing tech to mature to the point of replacing old tech, Should we have raised the price of the typewriter to force the adaptation of the computer? hell no, and the same is true with fuel.
how is putting gas in my car, that damages the engine, in turn making my car that used to last 15-20 years only last 10 "helping"
so while I may be "polluting less" in the short term, i need to buy a new car sooner (along with hundreds of millions of other humans
so, I ask you this. What is the cost/benifit/polution ration of using a fuel that will kill your car faster, gives you less power per gallon of gas (some 20%less efficient than regular unleaded) and therefore a car that runs for 100K miles, will use MORE fuel that is eth based than gas based
my issue is not with future times, my issue is with forcing high cost alternatives early rather than allowing them to mature.
I believe the same. As I believe most skeptics do
The issue I have (and many others) is the forced change being implemented at a what I would call a rushed time frame.
the planet is billions of years old, humans have been here for a few hundred thousand years, in one form or another. We have gone from fully covered with ice to other climates over the ages. We happen to live in an ideal climate for us right now and it makes sense to want to keep it that way.
The earth, even if we "ruin it" has an uncanny way of recycling itself over the years, the problem as I see it is that some humans tend to have a higher self worth of themselves than they deserve, especially in the entire earth timeline.
recycling as much as possible is great, renewables are great. BUT ad this is a big but, why do we have to raise the prices, or outlaw some forms of fuel or other things to force adaption? When the cars came around 100 years ago and put the horse and buggy out of business, did the government force them out of business? did they say that you can still have a horse and buggy if you want, but we are going to charge you more money for using it over a car? NO! when the technology was mature enough it took over.
I believe that with enough time wind and solar and nuke power and others will rid of us oil, but until that day comes, there is NO good reason to charge people more money for living, because raising the cost of gas artificially to get people to drive less doesnt hurt those who can afford it, only those who are lower middle class and poor.
lied to the public for weeks, and than is offered a promotion by the obama administration. These points are rather important
if we go that far than we need to go further back to clinton ith his high risk home loans he forced the banks to make to people the banks knew could never pay for.
ok
on te same argument then, would you be ok, if you were running the slaughterhouse, allowing protesers to open your gates at night, letting your cows out and not allowing you to butcher them? (providing food for others, and money to pay your bills for yourself) I would consider that no different than stealing if you wanna take it to that level.
right.. the correct response to disagreeing with a mans point of view is to halt his speech and lock him up. Works great in china
The easy solution is too obvious to ever be implemented. Loser pays costs. Make every lawsuit a loser pays costs (in some cases plus $$) we will have less thaan 1/2 the year lawsuits overnight
or.. like the guy screaming THIS is the year of linux on the desktop???
;)
/ducks
you mean how 97% of black people voted for obama? that racism?? cause that is the only racism i saw this election
bla bla bla
97% of black people voted for obama... you dont think that is racist?
you know damn well if 97% of white people voted for romney that they would be called racists, hell obama won and his side is still claiming racism
you never know if that baby is gonna be the next hitler, better to knock it off before it has the chance, At least thats how I assume they think
my uncle is a police officer, his first time through it happened to him.He ended up at a better station making more money a year down the road, but he was in the top 5 of the class, didnt get the 1 of 5 jobs meanwhile the only black man to apply, who finished outside the top 20, got a job. the only hispanic man who finished outside the top 30 got a job
Call it what you want, but until the people are judged by their actions, and not by the color of their skin, it is racist.
a black man is the president of the united states of america
I dont ever want to hear that ever again.
To me, everything you just said, is in fact a racist comment.
when person X cant get a scholarship to a college, eventhough their grades are higher than person Y, that is racism. when person X does not get a job as a police officer when they finish 3rd in the class, yet person Y -who finishes 15th in the class does get the job - that is racism
sure "white people" who have been dead for 100 years held "black people" who have also been dead for 100 years as slaves. but that was then, There is no reason "black person" should get anything special from "white person" today because neither of them had anything to do with slavery
how can we say he lowered spending when we havent had a budget in 4 years?
not taking money from someone != giving the rich money. Unless you dont believe you own any money and the government gives you an allowance.
But you dont want someone so incompetent that they get too much of nothing done, than you get...well... look around for the past 12 years
monica?
you cannot commandeer /.!