Adopt Illinois Clean Car Legislation and Breathe Easier! (Chicago: construction, automobile)

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Drover

What we'd really like you to do is stop hectoring us and insulting our intelligence. You've made your case. We've made it clear we're not interested. Take the hint.

There's that word again, "hectoring".

[Partners for Clean Choice]

Hi Steve - I have responded to Drover. The confusion is probably that I posted in both chicago and chicago burbs. I'm still learning this site so I made a mistake. My purpose on the board is to have interesting dialogue with others about current day topics. What's your purpose on the boards?

[Lookout Kid]

It's amazing to me that increasing fuel economy standards angers so many people when it's clearly the intelligent thing to do. I have no problem using legislation to "cram this down your throats". It's a completely appropriate use of legislation for the government to set fuel economy standards, and our fuel economy standards are currently too lax. Cry me a river about your "restricted choices". My guess is that 95% of the consumers won't even notice a difference in the automobiles they're driving.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by aragx6

We've allowed many local politics posts in the past, it's clear the OP is not a lobbyist, .

Yeah, but she runs a non-profit involved in this business. People often draw lucrative salaries running non-profits and she might have a financial stake in this in which case her posts are advertising.

[ccjarider]

Lookout Kid:
If you desire trusting bureacracies and busybodies to do your thinking for you, you probably would be happier livng in Europe. they do a lot of that over there.

There are still some people in US who don't want gov't mandating things as silly as gas mileage. Who cares? What problem are you solving?

The market and technology will provide alternatives and solutions if there is a profit motive. Private enterprise improves world, not gov't.

Al Gore's cute little story is not proven fact and there are a lot of people that will continue fighting to keep the Al Gore's and Nancy Pelosy's of the world from dictating to the masses.

You do make a key point that I do agree with . Too many people don't know what is going on and further just accept what comes their way.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Al Gore's cute little story is not proven fact

And you're a scientist I guess then? Everything in An Incovenient Truth is not accurate, but the fact is the VAST majority of scientists believe that global climate change is happening and that humans are, at least in part, responsible for it.

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

STATS: Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Yeah, but she runs a non-profit involved in this business. People often draw lucrative salaries running non-profits and she might have a financial stake in this in which case her posts are advertising.

If we followed this rule then few of us could comment on anything. We all have personal stakes. I work in science and I encourage folks on CD to make science a priority. In effect I have a monetary stake in that since it keeps me employed, but it's hardly the reason I do it.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by aragx6

If we followed this rule then few of us could comment on anything. We all have personal stakes. I work in science and I encourage folks on CD to make science a priority. In effect I have a monetary stake in that since it keeps me employed, but it's hardly the reason I do it.

Yeah, but running a non-profit is running a business. I'm not arguing her posts shouldn't be allowed, only that people take into consideration there might be DIRECT financial gain involved when considering her posts.

[aragx6]

Tom I think that's totally fair. I thought you were suggesting I ought delete her posts and I thought that extreme.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by aragx6

We've allowed many local politics posts in the past, it's clear the OP is not a lobbyist, and other than cross posting, she hasn't broken any of the terms of service.

I considered merging all three threads into one on the main Illinois forum, but they're prety long and at this point I fear they'd make no sense.

If this is what everyone would like me to do however I will consider it.

Don't merge them at this point. Just ask the poster to not do it again. If it happens again delete the duplicate threads.