Ted Poe R-Tx on the CFL

ban basketball · 06-23-2008, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Chance174

lol....okay let's talk about one thing at a time here.

First- it is not the governments job to intervine and mandate that the consumer has to buy a certain kind of light bulb. That is not their job we are not a socialist/communist country. We are a constitutional republic!!

We can talk about the patriot act on a different thread.

Come on fact guy....show the facts on how he is facist.

It's not the government's job to intervene in the economy? Really? What has government been doing for the past 200 or more years then?

Let's cut the b.s. that government shouldn't play a role in the economy, as they have an obligation to do so. If they are going to stack the deck in favor of businesses over individuals, in the form of tax breaks, corporate welfare, subsidies, laws to protet busines interests, bailouts, and etc, etc., then they can play a role in getting us to save energy. How could anyone possibly oppose saving energy?! Government plays a role on both ends.

Cyclone85 · 06-23-2008, 03:34 PM

B-Ban -- we can't take you serious when you end your argument with inflammatory statements that have no basis in fact. I will agree that the modern Repubs have serious issues and that many of us are disgusted with some of their fiscally reckless policies, such as Medicare Part D.

But to call Republics racists (which you did) and fascist (which you did), makes you sound goofy as a loon.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Yes, let's worry about government mandates to get us to save energy, thus reducing costs for all, thus relying less on foreign sources of energy. However, let's be sure that we accept government spying on us illegally, forcing telecom companies to do it for us, and stripping ordinary citizens of liberties.

Mandating energy polices is socialism, but blatant violations of liberties is not. Sure he's a fascist. The modern republican party is.

ban basketball · 06-23-2008, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

B-Ban -- we can't take you serious when you end your argument with inflammatory statements that have no basis in fact. I will agree that the modern Repubs have serious issues and that many of us are disgusted with some of their fiscally reckless policies, such as Medicare Part D.

But to call Republics racists (which you did) and fascist (which you did), makes you sound goofy as a loon.

And, as I've said repeatedly: I'm comfortable with that. If they didn't act like they do, then I wouldn't use the term(s).

As for me calling into Glen Beck, no, I didn't call in, but anyone who has seen the film and cares about a change in our present energy policy and reliance on oil, you can't help but become active for the cause. What happened to the electric car is criminal, especially in light of what oil is doing to our economy today.

Cyclone85 · 06-23-2008, 03:40 PM

Because we don't trust the radical left to tell us what 'saving energy' means. It will likely make the U.S. uncompetitive in the world market. The rest of the world is aggressively pursuing nuclear and drilling (even Norway for Pete's Sake!!!) to make it possible to grow their economies with lower energy costs. You're opposed to more and cheaper energy which is what average Americans need to survive and prosper. You want us to drive bikes to work or make us drive cars that burn on grass clippings. People all across the country are canceling vacations (including me) and pulling their kids out of sporting events because they can't afford 3-trips to town on a nightly basis.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

It's not the government's job to intervene in the economy? Really? What has government been doing for the past 200 or more years then?

Let's cut the b.s. that government shouldn't play a role in the economy, as they have an obligation to do so. If they are going to stack the deck in favor of businesses over individuals, in the form of tax breaks, corporate welfare, subsidies, laws to protet busines interests, bailouts, and etc, etc., then they can play a role in getting us to save energy. How could anyone possibly oppose saving energy?! Government plays a role on both ends.

ban basketball · 06-23-2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

Because we don't trust the radical left to tell us what 'saving energy' means. It will likely make the U.S. uncompetitive in the world market. The rest of the world is aggressively pursuing nuclear and drilling (even Norway for Pete's Sake!!!) to make it possible to grow their economies with lower energy costs. You're opposed to more and cheaper energy which is what average Americans need to survive and prosper. You want us to drive bikes to work or make us drive cars that burn on grass clippings. People all across the country are canceling vacations (including me) and pulling their kids out of sporting events because they can't afford 3-trips to town on a nightly basis.

OK, the floor's yours: What is "saving energy?" Do we have any responsibility in doing that? How does "saving energy" make us less competitive? We have to keep buying oil, further weakening our economy? Is that how?

I favor more and cheap energy: conservation and alternatives. You can't tell me that that can't work. The technology is there, so why aren't we using it?

Cyclone85 · 06-23-2008, 03:54 PM

Well then -- we can't take you seriously. Very few people that I have ever come into contact with have these thoughts. I work with a guy that worships the pancake smelling Michael Moore, and he doesn't even think that!

Regarding oil, remember that your standard of living depends on the free flow of oil and will for a long time. What we need is competition and your battery may be it. In the meantime, we need to increase supply (a lot) and I think you'll find that oil will drop significantly.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

And, as I've said repeatedly: I'm comfortable with that. If they didn't act like they do, then I wouldn't use the term(s).

As for me calling into Glen Beck, no, I didn't call in, but anyone who has seen the film and cares about a change in our present energy policy and reliance on oil, you can't help but become active for the cause. What happened to the electric car is criminal, especially in light of what oil is doing to our economy today.

ban basketball · 06-23-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

Well then -- we can't take you seriously. Very few people that I have ever come into contact with have these thoughts. I work with a guy that worships the pancake smelling Michael Moore, and he doesn't even think that!

Regarding oil, remember that your standard of living depends on the free flow of oil and will for a long time. What we need is competition and your battery may be it. In the meantime, we need to increase supply (a lot) and I think you'll find that oil will drop significantly.

Which thoughts are you referring to that "can't be taken seriously?" Conservation?

If we had increased fuel efficiency standards anytime since 1985 (which we have not), we would have all of the oil that people are talking about drilling for. How is that not viable or reasonable to expect an increase in fuel efficiency standards? Can you tell me who benefits by not raising them? This is off my rocker? If so, then strike me down Lord, for I am off my rocker.

Cyclone85 · 06-23-2008, 04:02 PM

Many politicians want to cap & trade which will end up restricting America's company's from expanding or forging new markets. Do you think China, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, S. Korea, Dubai, and Russia will saddle their corps with cap & trade?

The question is not with me. What is the left's meaning of 'saving energy'? Again, we're already on track to save 4% and it hasn't helped us. If you increase the cost of energy via taxes and cap & trade, America's products will be too expensive for the world market.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

OK, the floor's yours: What is "saving energy?" Do we have any responsibility in doing that? How does "saving energy" make us less competitive? We have to keep buying oil, further weakening our economy? Is that how?

I favor more and cheap energy: conservation and alternatives. You can't tell me that that can't work. The technology is there, so why aren't we using it?

Chance174 · 06-23-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

It's not the government's job to intervene in the economy? Really? What has government been doing for the past 200 or more years then?

Let's cut the b.s. that government shouldn't play a role in the economy, as they have an obligation to do so. If they are going to stack the deck in favor of businesses over individuals, in the form of tax breaks, corporate welfare, subsidies, laws to protet busines interests, bailouts, and etc, etc., then they can play a role in getting us to save energy. How could anyone possibly oppose saving energy?! Government plays a role on both ends.

First of all I never said anything about the government intervening in the economy. Rate cuts and increases have been happening for years to help the economy. Just wanted to add to your list.

The issue is the government forcing people to buy certain types of goods.

This has nothing to do with saving engergy (which i think is good), but the government forcing the consumer to buy a certain good.

Cyclone85 · 06-23-2008, 04:09 PM

No -- that Repubs are evil racists and fascists. That's why we can't take you seriously. I just don't happen to agree (nor does the average person agree).

There have been no meaningful technological advances that will make a car get better gas mileage covering a period of at least 20-years. Cars are faster, much safer, built better, but they don't really get any better mileage. My 1988 Accord and my 2003 Accord get the same mileage. My 2003 Accord gets better mileage than my co-worker's 2008 Accord.

One thing the government could do is force consumers into cars via huge gas guzzler taxes on trucks. Going from a 50/50 car-truck fleet to an 80/20 car-truck fleet would save about 7M barrels a day. But again, that seems a little too left for me. But on the other hand, it does seem wasteful for the millions of people that drive an SUV to work on freeways with a single driver (normally, a woman in my empirical observations over a period of many years).

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Which thoughts are you referring to that "can't be taken seriously?" Conservation?

If we had increased fuel efficiency standards anytime since 1985 (which we have not), we would have all of the oil that people are talking about drilling for. How is that not viable or reasonable to expect an increase in fuel efficiency standards? Can you tell me who benefits by not raising them? This is off my rocker? If so, then strike me down Lord, for I am off my rocker.

Ted Poe R-Tx on the CFL

Politics & Religion