GOP: Seriously, what the heck?

Page 3 of 5 [ 75 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

01 Sep 2012, 6:09 pm

Fuel is also taxed to try and deter you from using it. Our climate is being changed because we're burning too many fossil fuels. Taxing fuel consumption makes you pay for the damage you are doing to the environment when you drive 50+ miles a day.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 Sep 2012, 6:17 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

The climate will do weird things from time to time even after we're all dead. You could have asked the dinosaurs about climate change if they hadn't been killed by environmental change and they probably didn't drive cars.
Adding tax just to make our daily lives more difficult under the pretense of environmental voodoo is a reason to be anti-tax and anti-big government.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

01 Sep 2012, 6:33 pm

The climate does weird things from time to time, yes, but it does them over a much longer timescale than the change we are currently witnessing. Global average temperature correlates very strongly with CO2 levels, and we know why. You can keep your head in the sand if you like, but dem's the facts.

(Why is it only ever right wingers who deny cold hard scientific facts?)

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Sep 2012, 6:42 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

(Why is it only ever right wingers who deny cold hard scientific facts?)

Facts are elitist.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Sep 2012, 6:45 pm

marshall wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

(Why is it only ever right wingers who deny cold hard scientific facts?)

Facts are elitist.

Considering that the new standard set by Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for being a good conservative Republican means to take pride in not knowing anything, your joke is actually pretty close to the truth.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2012, 10:18 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

(Why is it only ever right wingers who deny cold hard scientific facts?)

Not so. Liberals assert the perfectibility of man and society. This is a serious category error. Liberals also tend to be egalitarian which is another blunder. Humans are not equal at all. They come in all shapes and sizes And levels of ability and ambition.

ruveyn

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Sep 2012, 10:43 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

marshall wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

(Why is it only ever right wingers who deny cold hard scientific facts?)

Facts are elitist.

Theoretical knowledge/understanding in all forms is generally frowned upon in the conservative mindset. Academics are a bunch of babbling pointy-headed know-nothings who only presume to speak with any authority on anything. Only the immediate and the practical is valued in the conservative mind. It's also impossible to know what to do to fix the economy if you haven't run a business and "created jobs". Conservatives generally believe all the answers are simple and obvious and they are blessed with absolute conviction and certainty. Any attempt at deeper or more nuanced analysis is met with immediate skepticism and sneering contempt. Truth itself is always blunt and obvious and self-evident, whether you're dealing with nature or "moral truths". It's all black-and-white and plain for everyone to see. Anything else is obfuscatory nonsense coming from some kind of weasel with an ulterior-motive, in other words it's not to be trusted.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Sep 2012, 10:50 pm

simon_says wrote:

Norway doesnt mind paying more to have a high standard of living for it's people.

A significant proportion of its electors don't quite see it that way - see the rise of the Progress Party there in recent decades, which wants a smaller, more efficient welfare state, an end to immigration, and a reassertation of Norwegian values. Seriously, look them up. Things seem to be changing in parts of Scandinavia.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Sep 2012, 11:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

(Why is it only ever right wingers who deny cold hard scientific facts?)

Not so. Liberals assert the perfectibility of man and society. This is a serious category error.

Says who? You? I don't need to assert anything to see that conservatives are just stubborn and resistant to change and that this resistance is sometimes irrational and to the detriment of society.

Quote:

Liberals also tend to be egalitarian which is another blunder. Humans are not equal at all. They come in all shapes and sizes And levels of ability and ambition.

Liberals do not believe the worth of any particular human being can be measured on a one-dimensional scale, dividing all of humanity into simple categories of "winners" and "losers". Liberals aren't so goddamn obsessed with social hierarchy and realize that hierarchy often serves as a tool in the exercise of power and control, not a measure of individual effort. talent, or merit. Liberals don't think with their monkey alpha-male dicks all the time like conservatives do.

SavageMessiah
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 202
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, US

01 Sep 2012, 11:17 pm

Politics is a minor side-effect of the human evolutionary process, driven by greed and oppression. Large-scale and long-term problems cannot be "solved" by it in any way.

Just like in the rest of the universe, the buildup of negatives will culminate in global "disasters" that will roll back the population to self-sustainable levels.

_________________
AQ: 42
aspie-quiz: 151 / 47

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

01 Sep 2012, 11:25 pm

SavageMessiah wrote:

Just like in the rest of the universe, the buildup of negatives will culminate in global "disasters" that will roll back the population to self-sustainable levels.

That sounds a bit religious to me - you're all doomed and we'll burn in hell.

Perhaps if we raise taxes perhaps that will prevent it a little while longer?

WE'RE DOOMED! D-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-M-M-M-M-M-M-E-E-E-E-D-D-D-D-D-D!! !! !

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

01 Sep 2012, 11:47 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

Keep in mind that there is a lot of urban sprawl in both Canada and the states. A lot of people drive quite a distance to school/work because of it. A lot of people from smaller cities have jobs in bigger cities so nobody needs eurotrashy condescension for having to drive an hour away from home to make a living.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Sep 2012, 12:21 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

North America is just plain big as well compared to England. Families are geographically spread out because most people have to shop for jobs away from the place they originally grew up. If you're traveling 800 miles to visit relatives in a different state usually there are only two options, drive or fly. Either way it's expensive. High speed rails would be nice but I doubt those will come anytime soon to the midwest. Only the east coast area has anything near a functioning public transit system. Live on the west coast or middle America and you're pretty dang limited in where you can easily get to without a car.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Sep 2012, 12:34 am

AceOfSpades wrote:

A lot of people from smaller cities have jobs in bigger cities so nobody needs eurotrashy condescension for having to drive an hour away from home to make a living.

This can also go for places like Australia as well.

It's all very easy for people say, in the South East of England or Germany, the Netherlands or Belgium to lecture Americans on their use of petrol but the entire infrastructure is enormously different in these countries. In places like Benelux and Germany, public transport is very cheap, clean and very thorough and easily accessible. It's not like this in most of the UK.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Sep 2012, 12:42 am

marshall wrote:

If you're traveling 800 miles to visit relatives in a different state usually there are only two options, drive or fly. Either way it's expensive.

In European terms, that's the same distance as going from London to Prague or from Manchester to Lyon in France. It's a long way and most people would fly to these places (with the exception of Londoners who have second homes in France). And again, Metropolitan France is a big country - driving from Surrey to Northern France would take a couple of hours. Driving to the south of France would take a lot longer.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

02 Sep 2012, 9:09 am

marshall wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

You are both right that it needs a functioning public transport system to work properly. Ideally a significant proportion of fuel tax should be spent investing in an affordable public transport system.

Obviously that isn't really practically for a 800 mile journey, unless you are lucky enough for your starting point and destination to both be on the same major rail network. At that point, fuel taxes incentivise you to get an electric or hybrid car- obviously electric vehicles will only work long term if we have charging points installed everywhere.

Page 3 of 5 [ 75 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

GOP: Seriously, what the heck? Post Reply New Topic

GOP: Seriously, what the heck?