kallend 2,146 #26 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWrong - you misread what the fine was for. (And that's the second time you've done it). This is your original post: QuoteGas (and diesel and jet fuel) should be taxed at a rate that reflects their true cost to the global economy, not just their production and distribution costs. True costs include cleaning up the environment, R&D to find replacements for non-renewable resources, etc. Road vehicles should be taxed at a rate corresponding to their (axle weight)^3 (that's weight cubed) because the damage they do to the roads and bridges goes as their axle weight cubed. A 5000 pound SUV should pay 8 times as much annual tax as a 2500 pound compact car. Those who drive SUVs with only one occupant into big cities should be fined $500 for the first offense, and $1000 for each subsequent offense. I did not misread that post. FallRate Obviously you did. Wriggle..wriggle..wriggle.... Do you need a sharper ax to split that hair with? - No, my blunt stick is good enough.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #27 November 13, 2006 QuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #28 November 13, 2006 He forgot to mention that he believes in one liners strawman opinions."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate He knows it. He's just trying to figure out a way to backpeddle his way out of it. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #30 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate He knows it. He's just trying to figure out a way to backpeddle his way out of it. - All part of paying the proper price for your actions, whether depleting finite reserves, creating pollution, or creating congestion. No inconsistency. I didn't suggest prohibiting SUV ownership, just making people pay.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 November 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate He knows it. He's just trying to figure out a way to backpeddle his way out of it. - All part of paying the proper price for your actions, whether depleting finite reserves, creating pollution, or creating congestion. No inconsistency. I didn't suggest prohibiting SUV ownership, just making people pay. <...wriggle...wriggle...wriggle..> You said: QuoteDon't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. But before that you said: Quote Those who drive SUVs with only one occupant into big cities should be fined $500 for the first offense, and $1000 for each subsequent offense. So please explain how imposing fines is "letting the market deal with it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 November 13, 2006 QuoteAll part of paying the proper price for your actions, whether depleting finite reserves, creating pollution, or creating congestion. No inconsistency. I didn't suggest prohibiting SUV ownership, just making people pay. Are you saying the global impact of driving an SUV is $500.00 per trip? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #33 November 13, 2006 You could try reading what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of making up you own inaccurate version. Same for GM.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 November 14, 2006 Quote You could try reading what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of making up you own inaccurate version. Same for GM. Oh I did. It's pretty clear what you wrote is what you meant. Sure you don't want to borrow the ax? The blunt stick isn't working. Unless you consider "working" as hitting yourself in the head with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #35 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuote You could try reading what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of making up you own inaccurate version. Same for GM. Oh I did. It's pretty clear what you wrote is what you meant. Sure you don't want to borrow the ax? The blunt stick isn't working. Unless you consider "working" as hitting yourself in the head with it. Where did I say that I should not have a SUV if I wanted one? I stated very clearly" that you should not tell me what to drive as long as I am prepared to pay the real price for privilege (which would include cost of energy and other resources consumed, pollution, congestion, recycling, sustainability, ...). This payment can come in the form of taxes, user fees (which includes fines), direct costs, etc. Anything else is your deliberate misinterpretation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 November 14, 2006 We can all read what you wrote. Thanks for playing. Come again. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #37 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate For what it's worth, there is a gas-guzzler tax imposed on new car purchases (not trucks) for vehicles which have inefficient MPG ratings. The liability ranges from $1000 to $7700.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 November 14, 2006 QuoteYou could try reading what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of making up you own inaccurate version. Same for GM. Is this what you wrote? QuoteThose who drive SUVs with only one occupant into big cities should be fined $500 for the first offense, and $1000 for each subsequent offense. You could try explaining what you ACTUALLY meant instead of just telling others they have an inaccurate version. Repeating different forms of "you're wrong" over and over isn't really that persuasive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou could try reading what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of making up you own inaccurate version. Same for GM. Is this what you wrote? QuoteThose who drive SUVs with only one occupant into big cities should be fined $500 for the first offense, and $1000 for each subsequent offense. Maybe this was covered in this thread earlier but here is the part that bothers me the most. kallend (and those who are like thinkers) has beliefs that he wants to impose on others. We (those who do not agree with him) are not smart enough to debate the points he makes and since we can not (in our ignorance) be convinced, the ideas and actions of those who are smarter than the rest must be imposed on the masses through law and court rulings You could try explaining what you ACTUALLY meant instead of just telling others they have an inaccurate version. Repeating different forms of "you're wrong" over and over isn't really that persuasive. Maybe this was covered in this thread earlier but here is the part that bothers me the most. kallend (and those who are like thinkers) have beliefs that he wants to impose on others. We (those who do not agree with him) are not smart enough to debate the points he makes and since we can not (in our ignorance) be convinced, the ideas and actions of those who are smarter than the rest must be imposed on the masses through law and court rulings. Debate is quashed using the guise of political correctness. Example. South Dakota passed some time back a very restrictive abortion law. A group of citizens went to the effort to bring that same law to a vote of the people. The "people" rejected it. That is how the system is supposed to work. Not some court telling the states what non-constitutional law they have to follow. My bet is, had the law been upheld, those disagreeing with is would have taken it to the SC, which is thier right however, in this case the court should have not taken the course because the people had decided. My opinion anyway"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #40 November 14, 2006 Quote I stated very clearly" that you should not tell me what to drive as long as I am prepared to pay the real price for privilege (which would include cost of energy and other resources consumed, pollution, congestion, recycling, sustainability, ...). This payment can come in the form of taxes, user fees (which includes fines), direct costs, etc. Do you apply these ecological sensitivities to skydiving? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #41 November 14, 2006 Quotedefines an ENEMY of the STATE.... Good movie by the way... perhaps MORE people on the right should go watch it again.. "Those on the far right are too busy watching The Matrix and believing it's real."~Lewis Black Jeanne, won't you come sit on the fence with me? The view is spectacular; there's double the entertainment. This whole thread is entertaining.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #42 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuote I stated very clearly" that you should not tell me what to drive as long as I am prepared to pay the real price for privilege (which would include cost of energy and other resources consumed, pollution, congestion, recycling, sustainability, ...). This payment can come in the form of taxes, user fees (which includes fines), direct costs, etc. Do you apply these ecological sensitivities to skydiving? Why not? If we all pay for what damage we do, our grandchildren will be better off.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #43 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuote kallend (and those who are like thinkers) have beliefs that he wants to impose on others. We (those who do not agree with him) are not smart enough to debate the points he makes and since we can not (in our ignorance) be convinced, the ideas and actions of those who are smarter than the rest must be imposed on the masses through law and court rulings. Debate is quashed using the guise of political correctness. Example. South Dakota passed some time back a very restrictive abortion law. A group of citizens went to the effort to bring that same law to a vote of the people. The "people" rejected it. That is how the system is supposed to work. Not some court telling the states what non-constitutional law they have to follow. My bet is, had the law been upheld, those disagreeing with is would have taken it to the SC, which is thier right however, in this case the court should have not taken the course because the people had decided. My opinion anyway Your position is to deny that things like global warming even exist (there are many examples of your writings on this topic). Mine is to make people pay the true price for resources they use and damage they do.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #44 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate For what it's worth, there is a gas-guzzler tax imposed on new car purchases (not trucks) for vehicles which have inefficient MPG ratings. The liability ranges from $1000 to $7700. Why should a rancher who needs a SUV have to pay the same tax as a a big city condo dweller who just wants a SUV because they are fashionable?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #45 November 14, 2006 QuoteBut above all, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, yada yada yada... Hey, I know parts of that line from somewhere. Where from? Is it from Scent of a Woman? Great character, good movie. OOO AHHH." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFXpert 0 #46 November 14, 2006 QuoteWhy should a rancher who needs a SUV have to pay the same tax as a a big city condo dweller who just wants a SUV because they are fashionable? B/c then you need a system (which would ultimately have a ton of gray area) to determine whether or not said condo dweller wants the SUV b/c it is fashionable or whether said big-city dude has an actual need for it, too--even if that need is toting all the latest fashions from the atelier to the fashion show. Or, is that a lesser need than a farmer toting oranges? However would we decide? Then of course, you'd have to widdle through applications for such a "determiner" in an attempt to find one that doesn't have a pre-conceived animosity toward big-city folk & their so-called fashions. By that sentiment, isn't a Ferrari also a fossil-fuel burning "fashion"? Would the tax on sportier fashions be greater or less than spacious ones?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #47 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote I stated very clearly" that you should not tell me what to drive as long as I am prepared to pay the real price for privilege (which would include cost of energy and other resources consumed, pollution, congestion, recycling, sustainability, ...). This payment can come in the form of taxes, user fees (which includes fines), direct costs, etc. Do you apply these ecological sensitivities to skydiving? Why not? If we all pay for what damage we do, our grandchildren will be better off. On one hand you say you are willing to pay extra taxes to skydive to create a better world for our children/grandchildren, but it appears you are not willing to quit your behavior that is wasting fossil fuel for your enjoyment. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #48 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy should a rancher who needs a SUV have to pay the same tax as a a big city condo dweller who just wants a SUV because they are fashionable? B/c then you need a system (which would ultimately have a ton of gray area) to determine whether or not said condo dweller wants the SUV b/c it is fashionable or whether said big-city dude has an actual need for it, too--even if that need is toting all the latest fashions from the atelier to the fashion show. Or, is that a lesser need than a farmer toting oranges? However would we decide? Then of course, you'd have to widdle through applications for such a "determiner" in an attempt to find one that doesn't have a pre-conceived animosity toward big-city folk & their so-called fashions. By that sentiment, isn't a Ferrari also a fossil-fuel burning "fashion"? Would the tax on sportier fashions be greater or less than spacious ones? I think Kallend's point has to do with the utility part of SUV. If you actually need an SUV, then you should not be subjected to all the same costs as someone who drives one for purely personal (read - selfish) reasons. For the overwhelming majority of SUV drivers, owning that type of vehicle is a luxury.. not a necessity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFXpert 0 #49 November 14, 2006 I understood kallend's point. My point remains. QuoteIf you actually need an SUV, then you should not be subjected to all the same costs as someone who drives one for purely personal (read - selfish) reasons. For the overwhelming majority of SUV drivers, owning that type of vehicle is a luxury.. not a necessity. How does one determine this? Is the driver of a hybrid, simply b/c they drive a hybrid, assumed to be a generally less selfish and more caring person? What if their true goal wasn't the environment at all? What if they just wanted to save money on gas so they had more in their pockets to spend, spend away on extra food at the market? Is an obese person selfish b/c they consume more food, thereby causing the farmer to tote more oranges and make more trips back & forth in said SUV? Or what if the SUV driver was in fact rich and drove it merely as a luxury---What if said person also donated a huge chunk of their millions to cancer research each year? With the proposed new tax, could it then be argued the money to pay for that tax would be taken from cancer research and instead applied toward preserving the environment? And even then I'm still not clear how this particular tax would help the environment since said rich, luxury-SUV driver will continue to drive their SUV regardless. I guess that tax would be going to??? A big bubble to install in the atmosphere to replace the depleted ozone layer? Obviously I'm being ridiculous on purpose here. I think believing one can determine a level of selfishness w/out knowing a person at all & in addition taxing them for it, is just as ridiculous. Everyone cares about different things. If everyone cared about everything, nothing would get done. Just my philosophical opinion.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #50 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote kallend (and those who are like thinkers) have beliefs that he wants to impose on others. We (those who do not agree with him) are not smart enough to debate the points he makes and since we can not (in our ignorance) be convinced, the ideas and actions of those who are smarter than the rest must be imposed on the masses through law and court rulings. Debate is quashed using the guise of political correctness. Example. South Dakota passed some time back a very restrictive abortion law. A group of citizens went to the effort to bring that same law to a vote of the people. The "people" rejected it. That is how the system is supposed to work. Not some court telling the states what non-constitutional law they have to follow. My bet is, had the law been upheld, those disagreeing with is would have taken it to the SC, which is thier right however, in this case the court should have not taken the course because the people had decided. My opinion anyway Your position is to deny that things like global warming even exist (there are many examples of your writings on this topic). Mine is to make people pay the true price for resources they use and damage they do. I do not deny that the world is warming. I do however have large reservations as to wether or not man is causing the majority or any of it. (which currently I do not believe)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,146 #44 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, my blunt stick is good enough. The first time I brought this up, you said you didn't believe you made any mention of "fines". This time, I'm apparently not aware of what the fines were intended to do. You may try to argue that the initial $500 fine and subsequent $1000 fines are to pay for the true cost of using an SUV in the global economy, but that doesn't hold up. I very seriously doubt there is any reason for a second trip through Detroit in an SUV to have twice the effect on the global economy when compared to the first. And a second trip down a street or across a bridge would not be any more damaging than the first. So the point of the fines is to discourage people from driving SUV's with no passengers into urban areas. The fines are to penalize them, to affect their decisions on what to drive and where. FallRate For what it's worth, there is a gas-guzzler tax imposed on new car purchases (not trucks) for vehicles which have inefficient MPG ratings. The liability ranges from $1000 to $7700. Why should a rancher who needs a SUV have to pay the same tax as a a big city condo dweller who just wants a SUV because they are fashionable?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #45 November 14, 2006 QuoteBut above all, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, yada yada yada... Hey, I know parts of that line from somewhere. Where from? Is it from Scent of a Woman? Great character, good movie. OOO AHHH." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #46 November 14, 2006 QuoteWhy should a rancher who needs a SUV have to pay the same tax as a a big city condo dweller who just wants a SUV because they are fashionable? B/c then you need a system (which would ultimately have a ton of gray area) to determine whether or not said condo dweller wants the SUV b/c it is fashionable or whether said big-city dude has an actual need for it, too--even if that need is toting all the latest fashions from the atelier to the fashion show. Or, is that a lesser need than a farmer toting oranges? However would we decide? Then of course, you'd have to widdle through applications for such a "determiner" in an attempt to find one that doesn't have a pre-conceived animosity toward big-city folk & their so-called fashions. By that sentiment, isn't a Ferrari also a fossil-fuel burning "fashion"? Would the tax on sportier fashions be greater or less than spacious ones?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #47 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote I stated very clearly" that you should not tell me what to drive as long as I am prepared to pay the real price for privilege (which would include cost of energy and other resources consumed, pollution, congestion, recycling, sustainability, ...). This payment can come in the form of taxes, user fees (which includes fines), direct costs, etc. Do you apply these ecological sensitivities to skydiving? Why not? If we all pay for what damage we do, our grandchildren will be better off. On one hand you say you are willing to pay extra taxes to skydive to create a better world for our children/grandchildren, but it appears you are not willing to quit your behavior that is wasting fossil fuel for your enjoyment. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #48 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy should a rancher who needs a SUV have to pay the same tax as a a big city condo dweller who just wants a SUV because they are fashionable? B/c then you need a system (which would ultimately have a ton of gray area) to determine whether or not said condo dweller wants the SUV b/c it is fashionable or whether said big-city dude has an actual need for it, too--even if that need is toting all the latest fashions from the atelier to the fashion show. Or, is that a lesser need than a farmer toting oranges? However would we decide? Then of course, you'd have to widdle through applications for such a "determiner" in an attempt to find one that doesn't have a pre-conceived animosity toward big-city folk & their so-called fashions. By that sentiment, isn't a Ferrari also a fossil-fuel burning "fashion"? Would the tax on sportier fashions be greater or less than spacious ones? I think Kallend's point has to do with the utility part of SUV. If you actually need an SUV, then you should not be subjected to all the same costs as someone who drives one for purely personal (read - selfish) reasons. For the overwhelming majority of SUV drivers, owning that type of vehicle is a luxury.. not a necessity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #49 November 14, 2006 I understood kallend's point. My point remains. QuoteIf you actually need an SUV, then you should not be subjected to all the same costs as someone who drives one for purely personal (read - selfish) reasons. For the overwhelming majority of SUV drivers, owning that type of vehicle is a luxury.. not a necessity. How does one determine this? Is the driver of a hybrid, simply b/c they drive a hybrid, assumed to be a generally less selfish and more caring person? What if their true goal wasn't the environment at all? What if they just wanted to save money on gas so they had more in their pockets to spend, spend away on extra food at the market? Is an obese person selfish b/c they consume more food, thereby causing the farmer to tote more oranges and make more trips back & forth in said SUV? Or what if the SUV driver was in fact rich and drove it merely as a luxury---What if said person also donated a huge chunk of their millions to cancer research each year? With the proposed new tax, could it then be argued the money to pay for that tax would be taken from cancer research and instead applied toward preserving the environment? And even then I'm still not clear how this particular tax would help the environment since said rich, luxury-SUV driver will continue to drive their SUV regardless. I guess that tax would be going to??? A big bubble to install in the atmosphere to replace the depleted ozone layer? Obviously I'm being ridiculous on purpose here. I think believing one can determine a level of selfishness w/out knowing a person at all & in addition taxing them for it, is just as ridiculous. Everyone cares about different things. If everyone cared about everything, nothing would get done. Just my philosophical opinion.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 November 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote kallend (and those who are like thinkers) have beliefs that he wants to impose on others. We (those who do not agree with him) are not smart enough to debate the points he makes and since we can not (in our ignorance) be convinced, the ideas and actions of those who are smarter than the rest must be imposed on the masses through law and court rulings. Debate is quashed using the guise of political correctness. Example. South Dakota passed some time back a very restrictive abortion law. A group of citizens went to the effort to bring that same law to a vote of the people. The "people" rejected it. That is how the system is supposed to work. Not some court telling the states what non-constitutional law they have to follow. My bet is, had the law been upheld, those disagreeing with is would have taken it to the SC, which is thier right however, in this case the court should have not taken the course because the people had decided. My opinion anyway Your position is to deny that things like global warming even exist (there are many examples of your writings on this topic). Mine is to make people pay the true price for resources they use and damage they do. I do not deny that the world is warming. I do however have large reservations as to wether or not man is causing the majority or any of it. (which currently I do not believe)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
