YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET MARKET. SHUT THE HELL UP THEN.
Are you seriously going to bitch about the price of cars when you say you only buy cheap used cars to start with? Shut the fuck up. No new car, gas or electric, would meet your criteria.
On the plus side, only being able to take what you can carry on to public transit does make you decide what's really important to you, and what you really need, rather than just grabbing a bunch of crap because you "might need it", and might as well take it.
No. Stop being an idiot. The vast majority of people don't need to go more than 40 miles in a single day, let alone 150. As a daily commuter car, it's just fine.
You're bitching about something that is hardly used at all, and most people who would be buying these cars have a second car available should they need range.
No, they have no manners whatsoever. If they don't agree with it, that's fine, but you don't get to take up the spot. I don't agree with special spaces for new parents either. Doesn't mean I should be able to take those spots.
And how the fuck is the store going to police their parking? Do you honestly think most stores are going to be willing to piss off customers by fining them or having their cars towed?
Driving an EV does not make you more worthy of a parking spot than anyone else.
It does if the owner of the business likes the idea of more efficient vehicles, and would like to promote their use by rewarding people who do with closer parking.
Generally that's what it means. Although sometimes it does just mean that they are giving a better parking spot to people who drive more efficient vehicles, just like some places will reserve the close parking spots for expecting mothers.
It has gotten steadily worse since the Conservative party deregulated power saying it would get cheaper.
You know what really pisses me off about this? In the history of humans providing electricity, politicians always say this. And in the history of humans providing electricity and politicians saying deregulated power would be cheaper, while regulated power would make the Baby Jesus cry, IT HAS NEVER, EVER HAPPENED.
On average, power costs always go up. The only real exceptions are the power utilities that are owned by the local government. Like the LA Dept. of Water & Power.
Agreed that the rules suck large portions of ass. But the idea that they're trying to apply them equally, with disregard to a person's status or position of power, does make it a little less contemptible. Not enough to keep them in place, but I'm glad that power isn't getting him treated above the law.
In this day and age, it should be pretty easy to allow remote voting for Congresspeople. I don't think it should be a regular thing, but in just such an occasion where inclement weather, or a bad TSA screening, the legislator should still get to cast their vote.
Although it is kinda good, as it shows that the law is trying to be applied equally to people. Rand Paul not being allowed to take the way out, or not opting to, shows that he's not above the law.
As for this "mainstreaming homosexuality" bullshit, yes. If it means the end of hate-driven violence against gay people in many parts of the world, including some parts of the US, then I'm all for it.
And considering the progressive's track record it is a pretty safe bet the changes will be for the bad./quote.
Sorry. History disagrees with you on that one. Society progressing has been a GOOD THING, as it has meant more rights and opportunities for the people.
Maybe if you stopped trying to see this as some "progressive plot", and looked at it as two loving people trying to get the same rights and recognition as two other loving people, then your attitude might change.
I honestly don't give a shit. The point is for people to have equal rights. The fact that you're trying to tie this into being part of some big "homosexual agenda" plot is fucking crazy.
There is no "homosexual agenda", any more than there was an "interracial agenda" or a "black agenda" back in the 50s/60s. Pull your head out of your ass, and realize that these people have just as much right to live their lives, and enjoy all the privileges of marriage that you do.
The fact of the matter is, your bullshit doesn't work here. You're trying to tie Mr. Garrison's behavior in that episode, namely, performing sex acts in front of children, including sticking a gerbil up another man's ass, with allowing gay marriage. And it's not going to work.
I don't give a fuck how repulsive or how much you don't like gay people. That does NOT give you the right to try and deny them their civil rights. END OF STORY.
I answered your question just fine. Just because you don't like the answer, because it doesn't tolerate people trying to control the civil rights of others, doesn't make it any less valid.
Everything else you've said has already been answered. Marriage is a civil right; that has been determined. And so gay people should be entitled to that right, just like straight people.
This bullshit about "You can't prove morality!" has got to stop. The fact of the matter is, one side is actively fighting to deny basic human and civil rights (and marriage HAS been decided to be a civil right) to another class of people. There is absolutely no moral or ethical argument that can be made to defend this.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is true range and price.
No, it's not. Range is NOT an issue for some 90% of regular drivers. Quit making it seem like people regularly drive over 200 miles a day. They don't.
They're not. They're choosing to shop at an establishment that has set one of them up.
YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET MARKET. SHUT THE HELL UP THEN.
Are you seriously going to bitch about the price of cars when you say you only buy cheap used cars to start with? Shut the fuck up. No new car, gas or electric, would meet your criteria.
I regularly drive my gas vehicle at -40. Works fine so long as we plug it in at work to keep the engine warm enough to start easily.
And are you gonna try and tell us that you can't do this with an electric vehicle?
No, actually, most of those criticisms are NOT valid. They're pushed by people who don't represent the average driver.
The arguments are being addressed. Just not fast enough for people like you, and you come up with more worthless complaints to replace them.
On the plus side, only being able to take what you can carry on to public transit does make you decide what's really important to you, and what you really need, rather than just grabbing a bunch of crap because you "might need it", and might as well take it.
Don't forget that the electric car can't do much other than be a metro runabout.
Which is good enough for the vast majority of people.
I fear that you have too much sense.
I fear you're an idiot.
But just how many sources of electricity for these cars is renewable/clean/carbon neutral/whatever?
Doesn't matter. Because the great thing about our grid is that it can easily adapt to new power sources being hooked up into it.
No. Stop being an idiot. The vast majority of people don't need to go more than 40 miles in a single day, let alone 150. As a daily commuter car, it's just fine.
You're bitching about something that is hardly used at all, and most people who would be buying these cars have a second car available should they need range.
No, they have no manners whatsoever. If they don't agree with it, that's fine, but you don't get to take up the spot. I don't agree with special spaces for new parents either. Doesn't mean I should be able to take those spots.
And how the fuck is the store going to police their parking? Do you honestly think most stores are going to be willing to piss off customers by fining them or having their cars towed?
EVs died-off for the same reason passenger rail died-off in the early 1900s
The oil and car companies bought them and dismantled them?
The plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit (minus the toon parts) isn't far off. The car companies bought the public transit trains in LA to dismantle them.
There are those who say, he runs the entire world with the end goal of turning it into a giant F1 track and family fun center.
Driving an EV does not make you more worthy of a parking spot than anyone else.
It does if the owner of the business likes the idea of more efficient vehicles, and would like to promote their use by rewarding people who do with closer parking.
Generally that's what it means. Although sometimes it does just mean that they are giving a better parking spot to people who drive more efficient vehicles, just like some places will reserve the close parking spots for expecting mothers.
It has gotten steadily worse since the Conservative party deregulated power saying it would get cheaper.
You know what really pisses me off about this? In the history of humans providing electricity, politicians always say this. And in the history of humans providing electricity and politicians saying deregulated power would be cheaper, while regulated power would make the Baby Jesus cry, IT HAS NEVER, EVER HAPPENED.
On average, power costs always go up. The only real exceptions are the power utilities that are owned by the local government. Like the LA Dept. of Water & Power.
Yay, you've just proven that they're not for everyone. Which is what the entire industry has been saying since the fucking beginning.
Agreed that the rules suck large portions of ass. But the idea that they're trying to apply them equally, with disregard to a person's status or position of power, does make it a little less contemptible. Not enough to keep them in place, but I'm glad that power isn't getting him treated above the law.
In this day and age, it should be pretty easy to allow remote voting for Congresspeople. I don't think it should be a regular thing, but in just such an occasion where inclement weather, or a bad TSA screening, the legislator should still get to cast their vote.
Although it is kinda good, as it shows that the law is trying to be applied equally to people. Rand Paul not being allowed to take the way out, or not opting to, shows that he's not above the law.
As for this "mainstreaming homosexuality" bullshit, yes. If it means the end of hate-driven violence against gay people in many parts of the world, including some parts of the US, then I'm all for it.
And considering the progressive's track record it is a pretty safe bet the changes will be for the bad./quote.
Sorry. History disagrees with you on that one. Society progressing has been a GOOD THING, as it has meant more rights and opportunities for the people.
Maybe if you stopped trying to see this as some "progressive plot", and looked at it as two loving people trying to get the same rights and recognition as two other loving people, then your attitude might change.
I honestly don't give a shit. The point is for people to have equal rights. The fact that you're trying to tie this into being part of some big "homosexual agenda" plot is fucking crazy.
There is no "homosexual agenda", any more than there was an "interracial agenda" or a "black agenda" back in the 50s/60s. Pull your head out of your ass, and realize that these people have just as much right to live their lives, and enjoy all the privileges of marriage that you do.
The fact of the matter is, your bullshit doesn't work here. You're trying to tie Mr. Garrison's behavior in that episode, namely, performing sex acts in front of children, including sticking a gerbil up another man's ass, with allowing gay marriage. And it's not going to work.
I don't give a fuck how repulsive or how much you don't like gay people. That does NOT give you the right to try and deny them their civil rights. END OF STORY.
No, this is just fucking retarded. Of course not being able to see your dying partner in the hospital is a human rights violation.
I answered your question just fine. Just because you don't like the answer, because it doesn't tolerate people trying to control the civil rights of others, doesn't make it any less valid.
Everything else you've said has already been answered. Marriage is a civil right; that has been determined. And so gay people should be entitled to that right, just like straight people.
This bullshit about "You can't prove morality!" has got to stop. The fact of the matter is, one side is actively fighting to deny basic human and civil rights (and marriage HAS been decided to be a civil right) to another class of people. There is absolutely no moral or ethical argument that can be made to defend this.