fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And there it is.
"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
And there it is.
Well fossten
you guys want the government to spend more money on the military. I think the money would be better spent on infrastructure.
Bridges need rebuilding, the interstates are showing their age, airport radars are obsolete, nuclear energy would help decrease our dependence on imported oil, schools and hospitals could use more money.
What's socialist about that?
you guys want the government to spend more money on the military. I think the money would be better spent on infrastructure.
Bridges need rebuilding, the interstates are showing their age, airport radars are obsolete, nuclear energy would help decrease our dependence on imported oil, schools and hospitals could use more money.
What's socialist about that?
This isn't a crisis as the media portrays. Either way, it is a state run issue, too many restrictions on building bridges shoot the cost through the roof, and the private sector could build and maintain any bridge in the US much better then any government.
Again, state run, and private sector is the answer there too.
purely private sector
Correct. Thank you environmentalists
School need more money? That is plain ignorant. Schools get tons of money! If anything they could do better with less money. The problem isn't lack of money in schools, it is piss poor management of the money. It is mainly used to fund buracracies in the name of school boards. More executive assistances mean less accountablity. On average, 50% or better of money that goes to schools is spent on administration, inservices, etc., while less then 50% reaches the classroom.
And hospitals?! Again private sector, but the most heavily regulated private sector of the economy, which is a big part of the high cost of healthcare.
In everything you cite, more government spending isn't the answer, if fact its a problem. Getting government out of these areas would be better.
When it comes to schools and hospitals, government isn't required to provide services, so the money their is descretionary spending. Military is not. It is the most important tool "foreign policy wise" we have, and required of the government.
As Calabrio pointed out, your argument is inherently based on a hypocritical double standard. You cite government waste in military spending, but conveniently ignore any waste and unneccessary actions in any other areas to achive your own ends.
You can thank congressional democrats for our dependence on imported oil. For decades democrats have prevented U.S. oil companies from exploiting U.S. oil reserves, weather in the Gulf of Mexico or potential reserves in Arctic waters, including those of northern Alaska. And for decades democrats have stood in the way of building new refineries and nuclear power plants. So here we are with $3-plus gas prices and an uncertain energy future.
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS!
democrats aren't to blame. excessive wasteful use and a bad ideology of consumers is more to blame. let's see. cadillac/lincoln forum. who here drives a vehicle getting in excess of 40 mpg. who on this forum also own an suv/truck. keep giving cheap energy and they'll only ask for more. raise it to where it should be for a non renewable resource and you'll see alternatives pop up fast. in the capitalist system there is no incentive for alternatives until it becomes cost productive. even raising it to european cost would create enough incentive to push the alternatives at a much faster rate.
whiners complain about not enough cheap energy yet do nothing to become a part of a solution. raping pristine land areas is only a short term solution. removing dependence is the long term answer.
(man, are we way off topic now)
whiners complain about not enough cheap energy yet do nothing to become a part of a solution. raping pristine land areas is only a short term solution. removing dependence is the long term answer.
(man, are we way off topic now)
Your view that consumers are to blame is the typical liberal mantra. Whether you want to admit it or not the record clearly shows that for decades democrats have refused to recognize the U.S.'s growing need for more oil, while at the same time complaining about dependence on imported oil.
You are mistaken about the need to have energy shortages before there is sufficient incentive to discover alternative energy sources. Development of alternative energy is dependent upon technological advancements. For example, for decades the private sector has tried to produce cost effective solar cells in an effort to find a profitable alternative clean energy source. Despite technological advancements, there is still a long way to go before solar and other alternative energy sources can provide relief from dependence on foreign oil.
In the meantime, due to democrat short-sightedness and pandering, we may very well find ourselves with another 1970s-like gas shortage.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oil is a renewable resource. The world is figuratively drowning in oil and has been for decades. You, sir, are ignorant of such things.
.
How do you judge what is wasteful and what isn't in regards to consumer needs? In fact, in regards to what is accomplished by consumers, the use of resources is the most effecient and economical considering trade-offs and options availible.
Ideology?! of consumers?! what ideology? There is no ideology here, just human nature. the problem is you wnat to impose your priorities on human nature, so you rephrase it as ideology so you can try to argue it; which is inherently self-serving, and ironically disproves your whole point. Human nature is selfish. You don't like that so you say they should assume your priorities in the act of consuming, which is also inherently selfish. Stop, being a hypocrite!
No the people on this forum prefer quality automobiles!
If you get a vehicle that get higher gas mileage (like 40 MPG), you sacrafice everything else! Enjoyment, comfort and most important SAFETY! Show me car that gets 40 MPG (or even 35mpg) that is anything more then a tin can in a wreck. In fact, show me a car that gets 40+ mpg that is cost effecient in the long run. It is foolish to by a car based on high gas mileage for both economic and safety reasons.
And you are assuming they don't need that truck or SUV. Prove that assumption.
Now your spouting mindless socialist dogma?! "Raise it [energy] to where it should be.." who is to determine where it should be? You? The fact of the matter is, the market has already set a price for it. Take away taxes, and that is where the price should be.
We ARE at European costs. The end price is different because of taxes. You are proposing more taxes to increase price. Absurd.
Yes, that is what liberals and enviromentalists do. Ironically, they spout the same rhetoric as you. The fact is, Bush and the republicans have tried to do something about it, but the liberals have stood in the way due to the enviromentalist lobby and the fact that the government makes more money on gas sales then the oil companies.
Nonsenical platitude. You are also writing of short term concerns in this. If short term concerns aren't addressed, long term concerns don't matter.
it is also the short term anwer. However you are puposely ignoring the short term. We need to be drilling, to say otherwise is foolish and ignorant.
Name alternative fuel that is anywhere near as cost efficient as gas and oil.
As I stated earlier.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Hrmwrm, if you really want to learn something, read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Until you've done that, don't presume to lecture the rest of us about how consumers and industrial capitalists are the problem. You simply don't have a clue when it comes to human nature.
As a matter of fact, anybody on this forum who hasn't read that book needs to do so. Talk about a book that should be required reading in high schools.
As a matter of fact, anybody on this forum who hasn't read that book needs to do so. Talk about a book that should be required reading in high schools.
ground_zero298
Dedicated LVC Member
You guys are just like 2 red squirrels in one pine tree.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You know what they say about shots from the peanut gallery, right? They aren't worth two cents.
Yep, Atlas Shrugged read in english and basic economics taught at the high school level.
But that would never happen, because no high school graduate would vote for a democrat ever again. The democrat party would fall, and the libertarian party would rise to take it's place. But at least we would have a much smaller government that doesn't waste money.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Hmmm... Fossten and Objectivism, never would have thought that.
I've had that book and Fountainhaed on my "to read" list for sometime now, I think I'll bring Atlas Shrugged to the top.
ground_zero298
Dedicated LVC Member
I don't know who these "they" people are that you worship. And I'm not gonna act like I follow or care what you preach. I just find it ammusing that you will argue over something that can't be won, thier just opinions. You wanna know what the answer to your questions are? I don't. I bet god himself could sit you down and tell you (fossten you have been absolutley right about everything you have ever spoken about) and you know what? No one would care. You would win in your own mind but could never prove it. All your doing is forcing your opinions on other people.
It's like 2 red squirrels in one pine tree. They won't ever see eye to eye on anything and will chase each other untill one leaves or one dies. Why? cause thats what their programed to do.
I just find this thread to be amusing. Also I am impressed on how much you guys know and how passonite you are about your views.
I just call things how I see them (no different then you) and it sure reminds me of the 2 red squirrels I watched in the pine tree next to the house the other morning. I just see things alot simpler then most people do. I'm sure you gonna lecture me with a bunch of big words and such, but it's O.K. because thats what your programmed to do.
At times it can get personal on this thread, as well as in this whole section of the forum [politics and current events]. But at it's best, it is an exchange of information for many reasons. At the least, if you read through this thread you cannot be said to be ignorant on the whole evolution vs. ID thing, as well as a few other issues.
When this forum is at its best, IMO, is when issues are broken down and individual claims are discussed. When it's at it's worst is when a broad range of claims are made quickly and without evidence, and when underhanded arguing tactics are used and things get personal.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Good response.
"When this forum is at its best, IMO, is when issues are broken down and individual claims are discussed. When it's at it's worst is when a broad range of claims are made quickly and without evidence, and when underhanded arguing tactics are used and things get personal."
but when it's at it's worst. it's sometimes the most interesting.
but when it's at it's worst. it's sometimes the most interesting.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's an intellectual feast.
Yeah. I probably sould have put the term "most productive" in place of "best".
When this forum is at it's most productive...