But electric cards are bad, yo!
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
He favors companies not skirting their responsibility and then having their lobbying/PR departments blame the regulatory agencies for the cost to the consumer when it is the company to blame.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Everyone ready to pay 40-70 cents more for gas to curb the dreaded climate change? California is!! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/27/california-hidden-gas-tax/ I sure hope the whole nation catches onto this I would really love to pay even more money for a gallon of gas. All while saving the planet from something that isn't based on cold hard facts, but bought and paid for theory's. You're going to spend 40-70 cents a gallon more in the coming years no matter what, we should be celebrating that it's going toward modernizing infrastructure and limiting the amount of crap our children will have to breathe. We should be celebrating a California law that takes money out of the pockets of normal Americans so that politicians can decide what to do with it? There is absolutely no way you're a conservative. Thanks for finally proving it. As Jet said, if the oil companies wish to pass their responsibility onto consumers, that's on them. IMO, if they are going to shirk responsibility, they should kiss their subsidies and drilling rights goodbye. Conservation and responsibility are hallmarks of conservatism. Lol. So you're encouraging laws that screw over your average American for the sake of an idealistic pursuit that may or may not have any real benefit. You, the self-proclaimed conservative and semi-libertarian, supporting California legislation and regulation. Ever hear of the duck test? They have to get raped by the duck before they know what it is. Jetackuu said: » He favors companies not skirting their responsibility and then having their lobbying/PR departments blame the regulatory agencies for the cost to the consumer when it is the company to blame. But electric cards are bad, yo! So, if someone burns your house down, do you blame the arsonist or the guy who made your house out of wood? The oil companies have their share of problems, but knowingly passing laws that will have a dramatic affect on the pocketbooks of average citizens (who in many cases can't afford fancy schmancy fuel-efficient cars) is terrible.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jetackuu said: » He favors companies not skirting their responsibility and then having their lobbying/PR departments blame the regulatory agencies for the cost to the consumer when it is the company to blame. But electric cards are bad, yo! So, if someone burns your house down, do you blame the arsonist or the guy who made your house out of wood? The oil companies have their share of problems, but knowingly passing laws that will have a dramatic affect on the pocketbooks of average citizens (who in many cases can't afford fancy schmancy fuel-efficient cars) is terrible. But but the oil company profits were suppose to be hit not the consumer! DAMN THOSE OIL COMPANYS!!
[+]
The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jetackuu said: » He favors companies not skirting their responsibility and then having their lobbying/PR departments blame the regulatory agencies for the cost to the consumer when it is the company to blame. But electric cards are bad, yo! So, if someone burns your house down, do you blame the arsonist or the guy who made your house out of wood? The oil companies have their share of problems, but knowingly passing laws that will have a dramatic affect on the pocketbooks of average citizens (who in many cases can't afford fancy schmancy fuel-efficient cars) is terrible. False equivalence! Passing laws that need to be passed even if they're unpopular is the job of a statesmen. All sorts of laws have unintended consequences, it is still not their responsibility when the oil companies don't own up to their responsibility. But hey, that's capitalism at work, yo! Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved? It wouldn't be an issue if they cut back on their carbon emissions, oh wait! Again, idealistic pursuits at the expense of the citizenry. As much as I find it mind-numbingly stupid, I am an advocate of state rights. Wacko land can live with its overpriced everything in its attempt to single-handedly save the planet. I'll enjoy my money in the meantime.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved? It wouldn't be an issue if they cut back on their carbon emissions, oh wait! I would bet cutting back on carbon emissions costs more than the credits, and even though I'm sure they are trying to cut back. Are you really daft enough to think they won't pass that onto the costumer? Not only that when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of EVERYTHING goes up. the only people really getting screwed here are you and I. The difference is you applaud the screwing Altimaomega said: » The difference is you applaud the screwing To be fair, Jet does that quite often.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » I don't expect logic from somebody who keeps improperly using the term "theory." I had a theory. Post something about global warming and wait to see who made a stupid comment first, Jet or Pleebo. Congratulations you proved my theory correct. Global warming theory is the earth is getting warmer. How do they test this theory you ask? They give a bunch of scientist free money to go out and collect data which they half-*** do. Then they take all the data cut it into unequal sections of time and say they have proof of global warming! Then ask for more free money to "make sure, and see if they can stop it" Meanwhile: The USA had its coldest winter and summer for 30yrs and all the "weather forecasters" say winter is coming early and its gonna be a cold one again. This is not how climate change scientists started research. Meanwhile in Europe we had one of the warmest winters on record and one of the warmest summers. Weather in one area =/= the world Bahamut.Kara said: » Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » I don't expect logic from somebody who keeps improperly using the term "theory." I had a theory. Post something about global warming and wait to see who made a stupid comment first, Jet or Pleebo. Congratulations you proved my theory correct. Global warming theory is the earth is getting warmer. How do they test this theory you ask? They give a bunch of scientist free money to go out and collect data which they half-*** do. Then they take all the data cut it into unequal sections of time and say they have proof of global warming! Then ask for more free money to "make sure, and see if they can stop it" Meanwhile: The USA had its coldest winter and summer for 30yrs and all the "weather forecasters" say winter is coming early and its gonna be a cold one again. This is not how climate change scientists started research. Meanwhile in Europe we had one of the warmest winters on record and one of the warmest summers. Climate in one area =/= the world No! We moved on to talk about legislation! Bad Kara, bad!
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » I don't expect logic from somebody who keeps improperly using the term "theory." I had a theory. Post something about global warming and wait to see who made a stupid comment first, Jet or Pleebo. Congratulations you proved my theory correct. Global warming theory is the earth is getting warmer. How do they test this theory you ask? They give a bunch of scientist free money to go out and collect data which they half-*** do. Then they take all the data cut it into unequal sections of time and say they have proof of global warming! Then ask for more free money to "make sure, and see if they can stop it" Meanwhile: The USA had its coldest winter and summer for 30yrs and all the "weather forecasters" say winter is coming early and its gonna be a cold one again. This is not how climate change scientists started research. Meanwhile in Europe we had one of the warmest winters on record and one of the warmest summers. Weather in one area =/= the world Didn't Europe have a pretty bad winter a few years ago? Kinda like the climate goes in cycles... Edit: The winter of 2009–2010 in Europe was unusually cold. Globally, atypical weather patterns brought cold, moist air from the north. 2012-2013 Exceptionally cold weather and frosts up to early April sparked concerns that wheat growth could be seriously delayed.
 I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Quote: What.... This is not how climate change scientists started research. Meanwhile in Europe we had one of the warmest winters on record and one of the warmest summers. Climate in one area =/= the world No! We moved on to talk about legislation! Bad Kara, bad! Mmk. =/ We should put sunset clauses in all laws so that lawmakers have to review their mandates frequently. This will do two things for sure: 1. Require lawmakers to be aware of the consequnces (expected and unforseen) of the legislation 2. Give them something to do besides go on news channels and talk about themselves and their opponents. The equilivant of fifth grade busy work but actually necessary to keep lawmakers on task. ***I have had no coffee yet, my outlook on the world: not amused****
[+]
That awkward moment when everyone waits for Altima to stop talking about science.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved? It wouldn't be an issue if they cut back on their carbon emissions, oh wait! I would bet cutting back on carbon emissions costs more than the credits, and even though I'm sure they are trying to cut back. Are you really daft enough to think they won't pass that onto the costumer? Not only that when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of EVERYTHING goes up. the only people really getting screwed here are you and I. The difference is you applaud the screwing You can bet on what you want, but it doesn't detract from the fact that they're polluting. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Altimaomega said: » The difference is you applaud the screwing To be fair, Jet does that quite often. To be fair: I don't. Altimaomega said: » I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! No you just don't understand the difference between weather and climate, or really anything else that requires an a brain and or education beyond that of a ten year old. Altimaomega said: » I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! 
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » That awkward moment when everyone waits for Altima to stop talking about what he thinks is science. Altimaomega said: » I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! Well, since this turning into a climate change debate is inevitable... I'm not a "denier", but it does get very tiring seeing the same explanation for everything. Hot summer? Cool summer? Climate change. Cold winter? Warm winter? Climate change. Good weather? Bad weather? Climate change. Holes in the ground in Siberia? Animals acting weird? Price of bacon rising? Satellites falling? Allergies worse this year? CLIMATE CHANGE.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » That awkward moment when everyone waits for Altima to stop talking about science. When you got nothing else make snarky comment. /check Jetackuu said: » Altimaomega said: » Jetackuu said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved? It wouldn't be an issue if they cut back on their carbon emissions, oh wait! I would bet cutting back on carbon emissions costs more than the credits, and even though I'm sure they are trying to cut back. Are you really daft enough to think they won't pass that onto the costumer? Not only that when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of EVERYTHING goes up. the only people really getting screwed here are you and I. The difference is you applaud the screwing You can bet on what you want, but it doesn't detract from the fact that they're polluting. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Altimaomega said: » The difference is you applaud the screwing To be fair, Jet does that quite often. To be fair: I don't. Altimaomega said: » I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! No you just don't understand the difference between weather and climate, or really anything else that requires an a brain and or education beyond that of a ten year old. When you got nothing else use the weather =/= climate card. /check Bahamut.Ravael said: » Altimaomega said: » I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! Well, since this turning into a climate change debate is inevitable... I'm not a "denier", but it does get very tiring seeing the same explanation for everything. Hot summer? Cool summer? Climate change. Cold winter? Warm winter? Climate change. Good weather? Bad weather? Climate change. Holes in the ground in Siberia? Animals acting weird? Price of bacon rising? Satellites falling? Allergies worse this year? CLIMATE CHANGE. Weather =/= climate, and the others one has to observe over periods of time. But this is indisputable: increased CO^2 emissions into the atmosphere from fuels that were trapped in the planet in a liquid form will increase CO^2 concentrations in the air to the point of increases the planets overall temperature, that we know, for certain, 100%. The question is: how long do we have until the levels are unsustainable for human life and or society. Jetackuu said: » Weather =/= climate
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved? So should water costs. When I lived in the US water costs were subsidized by the state (pretty sure they still are), which made water insanely affordable (both commercially and privately).While this lets everyone have clean running water (a good thing) it decreases the intrinisic value, people underestimate how important it is, and then people (states: within and outside the state) fight over it (a bad thing). The price of an item should accurately reflect the cost of said item. However, laws and legislation are not necessarily the best way to get the accurate price of an item, but sometimes a bad way is better than no way. I'm not familiar enough with the law or what the fund is being used for to say either way in this case. Edited~
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Altimaomega said: » I keep forgetting if it isn't perfect outside from the moment you leave the house and run to your car, store, bar, hole in the ground. ITS OMG CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! Well, since this turning into a climate change debate is inevitable... I'm not a "denier", but it does get very tiring seeing the same explanation for everything. Hot summer? Cool summer? Climate change. Cold winter? Warm winter? Climate change. Good weather? Bad weather? Climate change. Holes in the ground in Siberia? Animals acting weird? Price of bacon rising? Satellites falling? Allergies worse this year? CLIMATE CHANGE. Weather =/= climate, and the others one has to observe over periods of time. But this is indisputable: increased CO^2 emissions into the atmosphere from fuels that were trapped in the planet in a liquid form will increase CO^2 concentrations in the air to the point of increases the planets overall temperature, that we know, for certain, 100%. The question is: how long do we have until the levels are unsustainable for human life and or society. Its not known for certain 100%.. Please post an actual source for this manufactured data. Also, why since the co2 level is supposedly the highest its ever been has it been colder than normal for the past 12 months. And the planet not been warming for the past decade? When I say warming I say it very lightly because 1.3 degrees for the past 100yrs AFTER a little ice age isn't really warming... lol That is known for certain...
There's nothing manufactured about it, when CO^2 levels rise, so will the temperature. 1.3 degrees is warming, and is very significant for the whole planet, holy ***your scientific ignorance is astounding. Again: climate =/= weather.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The article makes it sound like the revenue goes towards a slush fund, which I expect is a Fox News spin, but that aside, why shouldn't energy costs more accurately reflect the costs of the pollution involved? So should water costs. When I lived in the US water costs were subsidized by the state (pretty sure they still are), which made water insanely affordable. While this lets everyone have clean running water (a good thing) it decreases the intrinisic value, people underestimate how important it is, and then people (states: within and outside the state) fight over it (a bad thing). The price of an item should accurately reflect the cost of said item. However, laws and legislation are not necessarily the best way to get the accurate price of an item, but sometimes a bad way is better than no way. I'm not familiar enough with the law or what the fund is being used for to say either way in this case. Or the government should just seize all oil, and nuke the middle east and take that ***too. (glass pumps, yo). I mean if we want to be insanely reckless with a non-renewable source, etc. Jetackuu said: » That is known for certain... There's nothing manufactured about it, when CO^2 levels rise, so will the temperature. 1.3 degrees is warming, and is very significant for the whole planet, holy ***your scientific ignorance is astounding. Again: climate =/= weather. If its known for certain post a link to an article or something, shouldn't be hard unless its not. 1.3 degree for the past 100yrs AFTER the little ice age, you keep ignoring that little FACT. The Dark ages were not only gruesome they was COLD, and It was way warmer when the Romans ruled the world then it is now.. Don't let history get in the way of your ignorance. You're the only ignorant person posting here...
I guess you want me to link an article stating that the sun's rays being filtered in the atmosphere cause a blue color too don't you? |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.