Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL... this is hilarious. About four people so far have misinterpreted my sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
Yes, the government shouldn't restrict our choices.
And why do I have to have a toilet at all? Why can't I just go to the bathroom in the river behind my house?
Mine was the toilet post right before your so
misinterpreted post I reread your post again, and I
still don't quite get your sarcasm but I know it's in there somewhere
I've got to go - I'm putting an outhouse in my backyard because I can't stand my low flow toilet I wonder
if I need a government permit for that
i think we can all apply common sense to rules, can't we?
i can handle my own thermometer/ light bulb/ toilet decisions without the government telling me that it is above my pay grade.
Common sense is not so common.
- Voltaire
It doesn't take long after visiting C-D political forum to figure out the succinctness in that quote. Having said that, I'm sure you can handle all that, except when it comes to energy efficiency and respect for resources.
Quote:
i don't mind you peeing in the street (common sense would stop most people, but i digress)...
Common sense at it, again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
You should address it with the current administration as well, not just Paul.
Coal IS dirty. That is not even debatable. The need to rely on the dirty resource is a different issue, however. If situation were different, why would you?
I am sure you aren't that clueless about individual rights. You do understand that each person has rights.
The right to incandescent bulb? The right to be fiscally irresponsible? Or, is it the the right to be in denial of energy crisis?
Quote:
Rivers are used by others, we don't have the right to harm others.
How about air, and (underground) water?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
This nation and its Constitution are not based on collectivism but on individual liberties and limited government. Your argument is firmly planted in collectivism, large government and restrictions on individual liberty.
The idea of nation itself is about collectivism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
Mine was the toilet post right before your so
misinterpreted post I reread your post again, and I
still don't quite get your sarcasm but I know it's in there somewhere
I've got to go - I'm putting an outhouse in my backyard because I can't stand my low flow toilet I wonder
if I need a government permit for that
I'm sure you would. Local authorities would definitely want to have a talk with you on the matter... and if you have neighbors, hope that they talk first and shoot later.
The right to incandescent bulb? The right to be fiscally irresponsible? Or, is it the the right to be in denial of energy crisis?
How about air, and (underground) water?
If those bulbs are causing direct harm to my neighbor, me and the company creating them would be liable. Just using more energy is being liable, for the higher cost. If power companies are so worried they need to price our use accordingly.
If it is such a finite amount of energy why not ban all energy use, that will save it all?
If those bulbs are causing direct harm to my neighbor, me and the company creating them would be liable. Just using more energy is being liable, for the higher cost. If power companies are so worried they need to price our use accordingly.
Are you surrounded by the bulbs? What kind of harm are you talking about? More energy is about more than just cost in monetary terms.
Quote:
If it is such a finite amount of energy why not ban all energy use, that will save it all?
all of this alternative energy independence stuff is just wasted money.
WE HAVE OIL IN OUR OWN COUNTRY AND NATURAL GAS.
all we have to do is tap into it.
that would be a step in the RIGHT direction for an economic recovery.
it is just like the government to veer away from known products which work, would give us energy independence, and would save us the trillions of dollars we waste on wars, with the excuse that "we need the oil". (which isn't even true for the wars we are currently in, as europe is the main beneficiary of the oil contracts there).. i am still waiting for an environmentalist/democrat to tell me how environmentally friendly these wars are. (and don't pretend many of you aren't all macho and into wars now either...)
all of this alternative energy independence stuff is just wasted money.
WE HAVE OIL IN OUR OWN COUNTRY AND NATURAL GAS.
The U.S. uses 20% of the world's oil. The U.S. has 3% of the world's oil. Your solution does not pass the most rudimentary arithmetic test for self-sufficiency. Wishful thinking is not an action plan.
The U.S. uses 20% of the world's oil. The U.S. has 3% of the world's oil. Your solution does not pass the most rudimentary arithmetic test for self-sufficiency. Wishful thinking is not a plan.
those figures are incorrect, buti did say oil and natural gas development.
from american thinker:
According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries. That's three hundred years, Mr. President. We are not running out of oil reserves -- it's just that those oil reserves have been declared off-limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left. This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation's needed oil.
(my addition here-not to mention that these oil rich areas somehow wind up being declared environmental sites which cannot be accessed)
Note the following statement from the article:
... untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today's levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
Think about that. The nations that currently hold us hostage by their massive oil production actually have far fewer reserves than our own nation. Put another way, some of the very nations on which we are dependent for oil are also the same nations that help to sponsor worldwide terrorism. Were we to extract our own oil, it would make our nation and the world a safer place.
we can get americans working again, in high-paying jobs where they can support their families, without the aid of the government, and without public assistance.
perhaps that is what the government fears most?
Last edited by floridasandy; 06-09-2011 at 04:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I reread your post again, and I
