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.
However,I fail to see where failure to wear a seatbelt ( or motorcycle helmet ) infringes on the -----rights of others.
Well the argument of course is that it raises their insurance rates, where that fails to hold water is that nearly everything we do can fall under that argument. What we eat of course would top the list, and before anyone thinks I'm wearing a tin foil hat there is already legislation in place or proposed in at least two places in California one of which governed how many fast food places could exist in a given area and another which mandated that certain stores carried fruits and vegetables. Both were aimed specifically at inner cities.
Another example would be rock climbing and in that case you're putting other peoples lives at risk in case they need to rescue you. Certainly if you putting both your life and the life of someone else at risk it should banned? Certainly not as you have made that choice as has the person who has taken on the task of any potential rescues.
Another argument is majority rule right up until the point it effects them. See the thread on NOT putting solar panels in the desert. When PA recently banned smoking there was one openely gay forum member here advocting the bill and his primary argumant was "majority rule", ironically he was using the same arguments I was about gay rights. When I pointed it out to him.... "Well this is different..."
These environmental groups are very vocal and because of that are gaining a lot of momentum with the general public, politicians and are driving legislation. Add in a clearly biased media, and ex vice president that wants to line his pockets and we have a serious issue.
I'm not sure which ex presidents pocket is being lined more.. cheney or gore.
Helmet law... don't make the rest of us scrape your brains off the highway or pay for 60yr coma care please. When I hiked angel bite trail in grand canyon they were sure to let me know before I set out that if a rescue would be necessary, I would be footing the bill for aircraft. I think that's fair.
Real science and real math regarding environmental issues. When too many are committed to untruths or half truths to 'win', everyone loses. I don't care to be stuck between 2 ex presidents lining pockets TYVM. FOX is completely FOS. Find a better advocate or you'll lose.
While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer.[3] However, with the release of confidential tobacco industry documents as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the objectivity of Milloy's stance on secondhand smoke has been questioned. Based on this documentation, journalists Paul D. Thacker and George Monbiot, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists and others, have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for the tobacco industry.[3][5][15]
His pocket is lined by Phillip Morris, and now he needs a new gig.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle is voluntary and simple to do. If you don't want to do it, then don't do it! Some of the things that the 'Greens' suggest, I have no problem doing since they are reasonable.
For example, not using plastic bags but canvas bags at the grocery store. Those bags are great and they're washable by hand. I also use them for other purposes including carrying my lunch to work. I used to come home from the store and after putting the groceries away I used to have a large pile of bags that could, at best, only be reused a couple of times. Then I had to throw them away. Using canvas bags beats stuffing plastic into our limited landfills. And before anyone says, "There's plenty of land for landfills!!" keep that in mind when someone decides to put one next to you or near something you value.
Conversely, some of the things the 'Greens' suggest are unreasonable. I'm not taking a cold shower. I like my water hot. Shrinkage, ya know?
Anyway, you don't have to do everything the environmentalists suggest one do. Do what works best for you. A little here and there can go a long way.
I'm not sure which ex presidents pocket is being lined more.. cheney or gore.
Helmet law... don't make the rest of us scrape your brains off the highway or pay for 60yr coma care please. When I hiked angel bite trail in grand canyon they were sure to let me know before I set out that if a rescue would be necessary, I would be footing the bill for aircraft. I think that's fair.
Real science and real math regarding environmental issues. When too many are committed to untruths or half truths to 'win', everyone loses. I don't care to be stuck between 2 ex presidents lining pockets TYVM. FOX is completely FOS. Find a better advocate or you'll lose.
so FOX is FOS because they are the only ones on the other side of the debate? In california, instead of increasing energy production which would be easy to do with nuclear power, they would rather put controls on your thermostat, and decide how much a/c you can use. Instead of fixing the problem 20 years ago, they are trying to put a bandaid on it.
Energy use is a fact of life that isn't going away. There are some in California trying to block the building of a solar plant in the desert!!! Wind farms are not running, coal is too dirty, nuclear is too dangerous.... You get the point. It will take about another 10 years or so, but more nuclear plants are on the way thanks to Bush's tax credits for nuclear energy.
On a side note, our local energy company here in San Antonio sent out free thermostat rebate cards. All you had to do was sign away your rights to regulate your own home to get it.
the rebate form went straight in the trash.
Mikeet I agree, but I think the OP of the thread is more concerned at how they've been allowed to influence policy (to their taste, in extreme). Cap and trade for instance isn't very practical until technology is 100% up to snuff. Beating up the mule before you can afford to buy a new car is a really bad idea. That's the jist of Obama's plan for cap and trade. We need coal for a while, and beating up coal won't speed up solar panel progress any faster. Investment in R&D will.
Mikeet I agree, but I think the OP of the thread is more concerned at how they've been allowed to influence policy (to their taste, in extreme). Cap and trade for instance isn't very practical until technology is 100% up to snuff. Beating up the mule before you can afford to buy a new car is a really bad idea. That's the jist of Obama's plan for cap and trade. We need coal for a while, and beating up coal won't speed up solar panel progress any faster. Investment in R&D will.
cap and trade is a ridiculous idea because CO2 causing global warming is a complete joke.
He wants to use it as a way to bring in gov't revenue, nothing else. trillions of dollars over a decade in free money for his big gov't that we will have to foot the bill for.
He hates coal.
He hates nuclear.
Wind/ solar/ Hydro can't sustain the country.
I hope you can afford 1000-3000 a year in increased electrical bills. Because that is what you will pay with cap and trade.
Energy use is a fact of life that isn't going away. There are some in California trying to block the building of a solar plant in the desert!!! Wind farms are not running, coal is too dirty, nuclear is too dangerous.... You get the point. It will take about another 10 years or so, but more nuclear plants are on the way thanks to Bush's tax credits for nuclear energy.
There are freaks out in San Franfreako that believe wind turbines will stop the wind and cause "Global Calming". Don't know about any of you but anytime I've stood on the opposite side of a fan it's been pretty windy.
Global calming!!!!!!! hahahahahaaaaaaaa
I want to see that mathematical formula that shows how many wind turbines it would take before it actually slowed the speed of the earth spinning on axis, hastening the rapture.
Mikeet I agree, but I think the OP of the thread is more concerned at how they've been allowed to influence policy (to their taste, in extreme). Cap and trade for instance isn't very practical until technology is 100% up to snuff. Beating up the mule before you can afford to buy a new car is a really bad idea. That's the jist of Obama's plan for cap and trade. We need coal for a while, and beating up coal won't speed up solar panel progress any faster. Investment in R&D will.
Actually cap and trade will substantially increase the roll out of solar. Coal is cheap but dirty. We didn't clean up auto emmissions until the government took action. We didn't start cleaning up our rivers until the government took action. We won't start making the transition to renewable energy until the government takes action. BTW the proposals are quite modest -- 20% renewable electricity by 2030 isn't going to shut down many coal-fire plants.
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.
Certainly not as you have made that choice as has the person who has taken on the task of any potential rescues. 
