• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 14

My comments

• Even more straw men bite the dust!
  "Having dollars is not a random occurance."sic
  
  Never said it was. Another straw man laid to waste...
  
  "You can choose to have more dollars by working harder."
  
  Again, the basis for this statement is not entirely true, however i never stated any positions on amount of work relating to wealth owned.
  
  "You don't think government is control by dollars (ie, stuff)?"
  
  Not directly, no. It certainly is an influence of course, and highly corrupting one at that. I'm glad you're with me on the idea of fixing this problem!
  
  "Other than your opinion, what quantative evidence do you have that the business is a bigger evil and government."
  
  This is a ridiculous track... You asked my subjective opinion on Big Government vs Big Business and then you want me give you quantitative data that shows my subjective opinion is objective fact. That's absolutely silly. How about if I ask you whether you like bananas more than apples and then tell you to back up your statements with objective facts? Pretty dumb.
  
  "Who has killed more people leaders of governments or leaders of business."
  
  This is a question neither one of us can try to answer without first acquiring data on the subject, then defining our terms and proceeding with investigation. Since you are asking directly about leaders of government versus leaders of business then I guess we have to first determine whether we are including only those crimes for which a person was duly convicted in recognized court of law. If we are including only accusations and heresay then the government leaders would probably have the lead cause you have maniacs like Sadam Hussein, Hitler and Mussolini who may very well have killed many people themselves, thus skewing the average. If we are talking only leaders who were duly convicted then the business leaders have it hands down as most maniacs (Hitler, etc) were never even charged while they were alive or were never accused of killing anyone directly in the first place (Hussein, etc)

  December 21, 2007

  0 replies

• Thanks!
  Have one!
  
  "...logic and HS Chem class. You scramble the issues and don't know the difference between particulates and gases."
  
  Actually, I do know the difference between particulates and gases. I pointed out the problem is carbon and greenhouse gasses. Apprently you took that to mean 'carbon is greenhouse gas', which I never said.
  
  "BTW, I don't watch Fox and cannot stand Rush."
  
  Me either, that was a blanket generalization regarding the arguments in this thread as a whole. Everyone comes back to "The evil green conspiracy is trying to force us to stop polluting in a diabolical plot to control us all through reduced carbon emissions!" It's just as silly as it sounds, because it's precisely what it comes down to, and where it comes from: Right wing controlled PR firms and "think tanks" that dream up their smokescreens and disseminate them through right wing talk radio.
  
  "http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/005034.html"
  
  Somewhat entertaining, though so off the wall it's hard to maintain interest. When someone acts like the the sky is obviously green and the sun is obviously blue it's just kind of... sad I guess.

  December 21, 2007

  1 reply

• Only pointing out to you your own logical fallacies
  "rambling, hysterical, liberal propaganda."
  
  Yes, cut that out, would you?
  
  "Oh yes I do think herion should be legal at the state level."
  
  And that's another debate, and you are in the extreme minority on that one so I think you're just going to have to deal with that one.
  
  "There is no reason that if a state wants to legalize it then why not."
  
  Agreed, except they don't want to so it's a non-issue. Thanks for trying though.
  
  "You can move to a different state if that offends you. That's called federalism."
  
  Actually, federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. (www.dictionary.com) So, it seems you already have what you want. Congratulations
  
  "I stated the Badger country statement because every person that I have spoken to that went to UW speaks just like you. And everyone of them after speaking to me says they have never even heard of the arguments that I make that's not a good education."
  
  Well count me in! I have also not heard the arguments you make because of your bad education.
  
  "I don't put that out there for any other reason than to say I have been exposed to both sides of the argument."
  
  Actually, you just stated that you said that because everyone you've talked to who went to the UW (which I did not) speaks like me. That's quite a compliment to the educational greatness of our state, which is widely recognized as one of the premier university systems in the country. So, thanks for recognizing our eloquent and succinct graduates of the UW system!
  
  "I think the free market argument is tremedously more compelling than centralized control.
  "
  
  Whether or not a thing is compelling has no relation at all to whether it is feasible. All things in moderation: An absolute free market with no regulation leads to fascism. An all powerful government that controls all trade is a dictatorship. I don't fall into the trap that we have to choose between a fascism or a dictatorship. I think our current system, though seriously flawed in many ways, is the best one anyone's come up with yet.

  December 21, 2007

  0 replies

• Yes, are you reading what you write?
  "I stated that I was referring to you voting with your dollars."
  
  No, I believe you stated that I was trying to force you to vote my way by arguing withg your illogical statements online.
  
  "That was the voting that I was referring to but you are too hysterical to read objectively."
  
  Do I seem hysterical to you? That's odd, because I'm not. I have actually quoted nearly every point I have refuted so there should be no confusion over what you said and what I replied.
  
  "Bottom line is you want it your way and you are using the tyanny of the government to do it."
  
  Actually, I don't even live in California. Furthermore, the article deals with California trying to set it's own higher emissions standards rather than adhering to the low federal standards. The government that you are somehow convinced that I am trying to tyrannize you with is mandating a more lax, less effective standard so your statement here really makes no sense at all. Maybe you should read the article? Or do you posit that you want higher, more restictive emissions standards and I am tyrannizing you into accepting lower standards by clubbing you over the head with the federal government? That's really wacky!
  
  "Otherwise, you would have no problem with free people spending THEIR money on anything they want."
  
  Well, I'm not a member of the so-called "Libertarian Party" (which actually isn't libertarian but that's another debate) so no, I don't believe anyone should be able to just buy whatever they want. Nuclear weapons, poisons, very addictive drugs, incendiary devices.... there are a lot of things I feel should be regulated. That doesn't mean, as you have incorrectly stated, that I am "using the tyranny of the government to get my way." (And, as I pointed out previously, that argument makes no sense on it's face since it was the federal government that was overriding the state of California's attempt to bring their emissions standards into a more restrictive system.)
  
  "I personally would rather see houses stuffed into every last inch of our country than a single bunny rabbit roaming wide open space. Build, build, build..."
  
  Well, that sounds like some kind of pculiar mental illness and I both urge you to get that treated and thank you for your candidness and honesty regarding your irrational thought processes.

  December 21, 2007

  0 replies

• Are we really doing that badly at education?
  "Wow, I don't believe it. You actually admitted that the point of the proposed laws is not to stop "global warming", but to increase fuel economy and reduce pollution. So the whole "global warming" thing is just a scam. Thanks for clearing that up"
  
  So, by extension of your illogical thought process: The point of having a fire department is not to save lives and property, it's to force everyone to pay for firetrucks. Come on, you can't be that dumb that you can't see the connection between limiting pollution by legislation and reducing the poison in the air, can you?
  
  I'm certain you must be pulling everyone's leg here, to be smart enough to read and understand the article but be so dumb that you can't connect the cause with the effect is just not possible.

  December 21, 2007

  2 replies

• MMMM, you're getting closer!
  What you're trying to say is: All things being equal, if a car is priced higher but allows you to go farther on less gas than a lower priced car which is more expensive to fill with fuel, then why should I buy a hybrid?
  
  The problem is, all things aren't equal. The advertising and availability factor coupled with the fact the same industries producing the inefficient cars are the ones paying the fake scientists to go on the news and proclaim that the truth is not yet known about climate change skews things quite a bit.
  
  "Consumers are not willing to pay the extra cost to "save the environment" so why does government need to step in."
  
  I covered this in a previous post. Basically, this is not a majority rule, this is a democracy. While the majority of people, through ignorance or outright stupidity, may not care if the planet is warming at a higher and exponentially growing rate than is tenable for human life, tough! The minority of people have equal human right to change their world for the better and not be imposed upon by the tyranny of the majority.
  
  "The ONLY reason the government needs to step in (in YOUR opinion) is to change our votes by fiat."
  
  Again, this make no sense at all. And quit telling me what my opinion is, you get it wrong every time. I cannot force you to vote in any way at all, nor can I decide for you what you will buy. You can go buy gasoline by the barrel and pour in the ocean, I can't do anything to stop it except call the cops. What i can do is vote my conscience and spend my money wisely, as can you or anyone else.
  
  "In other words, to force us to vote your way!"
  And what way is that? I don't recall discussing who I've voted for lately.
  
  "Inflation is irrelevant to this argument..." Finally, we agree on something!

  December 20, 2007

  1 reply

• Basic high school education at least!
  "Any retard can express an opinion in support of the Gore crowd, but only a super expert can disagree?"
  
  No, a true statement would be: Any retard can express an opinion in support of the Gore crowd and any retard can disagree, but they both better have a basic understanding of what they are talking about beyond FAUX News sound bites and Rush Limbaugh's talking points for the day freshly faxed over from the Heritage Foundation.

  December 20, 2007

  1 reply

• The logical facts listed.
  "LOL, that is just so funny. Actually I took Chem in college, but the science needed to understand what they are talking about is far beyond the two years I had."
  
  Not at all, I just explained it to you, go back and re-read it.
  
  "You are claiming that the basic problem is soot in the air (particulate matter in suspension does not make the media it is in denser, btw)"
  
  Adding solid particles to a gas without expanding it's "container" (in this case the atmosphere) will certainly make the gas (air in this case) more dense. Density is mass per unit volume. More mass in the same sized volume = increased density. I'm sure they covered that on the day you were out sick.
  
  "The scares are about gasses, specifically CO2"
  
  Wrong again. The "scare" is about carbon and greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is but one. (By the way CO2 is Carbon attached to two Oxygen molecules.)
  
  "About the power and wealth play, the goal is not to improve the environment or reduce pollution. Consider Kyoto; all that money was to be turned over to the 3rd world rulers, but no audits allowed. Lunch break just ended, I'll have to try to come back to this later."
  
  Hmmm, now all of a sudden you're concerned about the accountability of 3rd world leaders... well, if you're concern is genuine then that can be rectified by means other than claiming that overwhelming scientific evidence is being manufactured by an evil cabal of select environmentalists bent on controlling the world through reduced carbon emissions. (I know you didn't actually say that, but it seems to be what these arguments all boil down to.)

  December 20, 2007

  1 reply

• Understand basic economics before giving lessons.
  "You must be writing from Badger country."
  
  Well, you just lost the argument by default of ad hominem, but I'll play along anyway so maybe you can learn something...
  
  "If consumers were willing to pay more for "green" cars than let's say "black" cars then automakers would produce them because it would be in their (producers) best interest to do so."
  
  Obviously if the market says it will bear a higher price (not cost) then the market would benefit from producing more of the higher priced goods, this is basic and not a point of contention.
  
  "Your premise that there is a bigger profit margin on "black" cars tells you that consumers want the power, size, etc these vehicles provide at the cost of hurting the environment (according to you)."
  
  This is absolutely false, I can't figure out how you'd come to such a flawed conclusion and it certainly is NOT "according to me." Profit is simply the difference between cost and price. A profit margin is not affected in any way at all by what consumers want. It's just a mathematical result of the difference between what a good costs to produce and the price it can be sold for. If your statement here made any sense at all then the whole concept of a "loss leader" would not exist, since in your mind a good must be profitable if people want it. (At least I think that's the mistake you're making, or you could somehow be thinking that people only want profitable goods... that's getting really far out there.)
  
  "Well if that is the total cost consumer are willing to pay then why should the govt step in." sic
  
  I assume you mean "total price consumers are willing to pay"... Again, a flawed conclusion. The market sets the prices, but this has nothing to do with why the people of the US have a right to tell companies what they can or cannot sell within their borders. There is a HUGE demand for heroin in this country, does that mean it shouldn't even be regulated by the government, let alone made illegal? That's not your argument, but it's an extension of your illogic.
  
  "We have already voted. Producers are constantly holding elections (to max profit). If consumers are suddenly willing to pay for "green" cars guess what someone (maybe even you) can make them. There is only one reason for tyranny: control someone else for other's benefit. You can drive green I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you forcing me to drive green. If you want to spend your life "educating" people of the benefits of "green" then go to it. Just don't force me to follow your religion. What's wrong with what I propose?"
  
  Again, much of this makes no sense, but in order to keep in brief I will address only the points that seem germane:
  I am not forcing you to do anything. If you wish to throw your money out the (car) window in a vainglorious show of wasted money, go for it! Religion? I don't even know what you're talking about with most of this, it's completely off the wall. What's wrong with what you propose? I don't know, how about proposing something and I'll let you know!
  
  In summation: You used the term tyranny. I suggest you google the phrase "tyranny of the majority", go re-read the bill of rights, brush up on your basic economics and civics classes and get back to me. The majority of Americans may feel it's ok to waste everyone else's resources and ruin their health and environment, that doesn't make it so. Just like a majority of Americans once felt it was just fine to own black people, kill gay people and deny women the right to vote, the minority of Americans that feel that you have no right to poison everyone else's air will eventually prevail.

  December 20, 2007

  1 reply

• More straw man arguments slayed!
  "Why do you fear big business but not fear big government. Our founding fathers feared big government..."
  
  Where did I say I did or did not fear either one? Straw man arguments are so easy to expose.
  
  To sort of answer your questions, although I don't entirely agree with the premise, I fear "Big Government" slightly less than I fear Big Business for one reason: Votes.
  
  In business you vote with your dollars and therefore; he with the most dollars wins. In politics (for the time being, at least) you get one vote per person. Democracy is founded on the principle that people can change policy with the vote. Business is based on market forces and economics, which is easier to control when you own all the votes (dollars).

  December 20, 2007

  1 reply