Really interested in "saving" Earth?

[zrinkill]

How about making Hybrid Cars tax deductible? Wonder if any politician on either side would back that? Or is it really just a political tool?

[Eric_Boyer]

That isn't going to fix anything.

You want to fix this problem - address the problem - which is our excess consumption.

And why do we consume so much more then other nations? Easy Credit and income distribution play a big role in this. Oil subsidation also plays a role.

Mankin doesn't have the stomach to actually do anything about this issue. Tax cuts on hybrids. :lmao2:

[zrinkill]

Tax cuts on hybrids. :lmao2:

You do not think that would cause more people to buy them? Or do you just know that the Al Gore's of the world would not follow up on their talk at the cost of taking money out of the governments pockets?

[AtlCB]

Tax cuts on hybrids. :lmao2:

Why is this solution homorous to you? People would buy these cars if they received a tax benefit. I think the cost of your car should be tax deductible if it gets better than 30MPG. Would you prefer that everyone drive huge SUV's?

[Eric_Boyer]

You do not think that would cause more people to buy them? Or do you just know that the Al Gore's of the world would not follow up on their talk at the cost of taking money out of the governments pockets?

I don't think hybrids will save the Earth. Your line of thinking is part of the problem - you are looking at tax saving designed to spur on consumption.


If you truly believe manmade global warming is going to be catostrophic, you need to argue for doubling or tripling of the cost of oil, yet our foreign policy has always been designed around reducing the costs of oil.

[zrinkill]

I don't think hybrids will save the Earth. Your line of thinking is part of the problem - you are looking at tax saving designed to spur on consumption.


If you truly believe in manmade global warming is going to be catostrophic, you need to argue for doubling or tripling of the cost of oil, yet our foreign policy has always been designed around reducing the costs of oil.

Nope .... I do not believe in man made Global warming or that we are "using up" all the worlds resources .... I am just laying out there a practical way to make people drive Hybrids ..... even those who are not crazy environmentalist ...

Giving a tax break to Hybrid drivers would get people who do not care about this issue to drive Hybrids because it benefits them.

[zrinkill]

This is already done with Tank less water heaters ..... thats what gave me the idea.

[AtlCB]

I don't think hybrids will save the Earth. Your line of thinking is part of the problem - you are looking at tax saving designed to spur on consumption.


If you truly believe manmade global warming is going to be catostrophic, you need to argue for doubling or tripling of the cost of oil, yet our foreign policy has always been designed around reducing the costs of oil.
A better solution would be to convince people to drive vehicles that use 1/3 the amount of fuel. Tripling the cost of gasoline will only harm the economy.

The tax savings doesn't spur on consumption. People are going to buy new cars. The tax savings will simply convince more drivers to buy a hybrid instead of a gas-guzzler.

[Danny White]

Don't they already do this?

I thought there was some kind of tax write-off if you buy a hybrid.


Edit:
Yes, there is a credit... but I take it you're looking for something a bit bigger:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

[zrinkill]

Don't they already do this?

I thought there was some kind of tax write-off if you buy a hybrid.


Edit:
Yes, there is a credit... but I take it you're looking for something a bit bigger:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

Wow ..... thats pretty good ..... but yes I was thinking much bigger considering how expensive they are.

[AbeBeta]

A better solution would be to convince people to drive vehicles that use 1/3 the amount of fuel. Tripling the cost of gasoline will only harm the economy.

Reducing consumption only works if we actually change our behaviors -- hybrids can help but that option is more valuable if hybrids become the vehicle of choice for people who HAVE to drive rather than convenient excuse to drive for those who could choose another means of transportation. Otherwise, it simply becomes a justification for driving 1/2 a mile to work instead of walking because "hey, i drive a hybrid."

[BrAinPaiNt]

You guys should watch a documentary.

I think it is called something like Who killed the electric car.

Even though it is biased towards the electric car, it is hard not to watch that and not come away thinking that it was the Oil Companies, parts business and even the auto manufacturer itself that killed it.

The measures that went forward was like it was set up to fail from the start even though the people who had the cars loved them.

Too much money involved for the oil and parts business to let things go quietly towards vehicles that use less oil.

Hybrids themselves may help an individual save some money and may help the environment to a degree but they are not a long term goal at all because they still rely on the oil industry.

[burmafrd]

Electric cars failed because battery technology was not yet advanced enough. Still really isn't, but they have gotten better.
My mother has a 1995 Toyota Tercell and gets an AVERAGE of 38 mpg.
She has had it for almost 10 years (got it used). Its always been that good.
In case you are keeping track- thats about as good as the best hybrids.
Tell me why 12 years later we can not have conventional cars that get that kind of gas mileage?

[Eric_Boyer]

A better solution would be to convince people to drive vehicles that use 1/3 the amount of fuel. Tripling the cost of gasoline will only harm the economy.

The tax savings doesn't spur on consumption. People are going to buy new cars. The tax savings will simply convince more drivers to buy a hybrid instead of a gas-guzzler.

Our economy is the target. Consumption is what needs to be addressed.

It isn't just cars. It is the square foot of homes. It is all the products we use that is made from oil. IT is even our eating habits.

Oil is priced artifically low as it stands right now. Consider the huge profits oil companies make, could they stand to make the same profits if America didn't spend so much on defense? Those profits come about because the Oil companies benefits from security subsidation.

Switcing to hybrids, mandating fluoro lighting, and swithing daylight saving time amounts to a band aid.

The true culprit is consumption such as the ability to eat a fresh banana in the dead of winter. Unless the price of oil is increased, the incentive to change our consumption habits won't change. We will continue to build bigger houses, bigger cars, Travel more often, and eat more and more non local foods.

[zrinkill]

We will continue to build bigger houses, bigger cars, Travel more often, and eat more and more non local foods.

Sounds great! :thumbup:

[burmafrd]

Anyone thinking that lectures and commercials and BS like that is going to make people change their habits....
People change when it benefits THEM. Its dumb to think anyway else will work.

[Eric_Boyer]

Anyone thinking that lectures and commercials and BS like that is going to make people change their habits....
People change when it benefits THEM. Its dumb to think anyway else will work.


Exactly - so unless oil prices go up - people won't change their habits.

As for an income tax solution - it goes back to consumption. 50% of us don't pay taxes but we are consuming a heck of alot. Why would a tax cut effect their habits when they don't pay taxes in the first place?

[AbeBeta]

Electric cars failed because battery technology was not yet advanced enough.

Actually, that isn't true -- the cars themselves worked fine and the people who leased them were really pissed that they had to give them back. Most people don't need a car that can go long distances -- if you aren't driving 100 miles a day then it isn't a problem to have a car that doesn't travel those long distances.

Considerable driver satisfaction -- Brain's suggestion regarding the documentary is right on.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Electric cars failed because battery technology was not yet advanced enough. Still really isn't, but they have gotten better.
My mother has a 1995 Toyota Tercell and gets an AVERAGE of 38 mpg.
She has had it for almost 10 years (got it used). Its always been that good.
In case you are keeping track- thats about as good as the best hybrids.
Tell me why 12 years later we can not have conventional cars that get that kind of gas mileage?

The batteries were a problem as they only got about 50 miles before needing recharged if I recall, and yes they have gotten better.

However you really should watch that documentary I was talking about.

No matter the battery situation people that leased these cars,yes the auto manufacture would ONLY lease these cars, begged the auto manufacture to let them buy the cars and keep them.

The majority were very happy with them because they were much cheaper across the board not only in gas mileage costs but also repair costs because.

These were people that main used them for work. Jobs that were 10-20 miles away tops.

However the manufacturer rounded up ALL of the cars. Sent them to a place an had them all DESTROYED. They would not let the people who were willing to buy the cars keep them.

The people liked their cars so much that many of them staged rallies and kept track of the cars to see what was happening to them after they were taken from them.

There is only ONE car out of all of the ones they made and they let an auto museum keep the car however they took out the engine.

It was not just the oil industry by itself that would lose money. It was also auto parts manufacturers.
The electric engine was less likely to break down and did not need some of the same parts that a conventional motor would need.

[Doomsday101]

Let see. One day the sun will burn out as all stars do. An Astriod will plow into the earth as it has before killing most of us. Massive volcano's will erupt through out the world causes a long winter for many years killing most of us. I tell you folks we are not getting out of this alive. :lmao2:

[iceberg]

I don't think hybrids will save the Earth. Your line of thinking is part of the problem - you are looking at tax saving designed to spur on consumption.


If you truly believe manmade global warming is going to be catostrophic, you need to argue for doubling or tripling of the cost of oil, yet our foreign policy has always been designed around reducing the costs of oil.

so first it was just a callous lazy mankind in general that was the cause of global warming. seems now you're saying it's all the use of oils' fault.

if we double or triple the cost of oil we just give the arab community 2-3x the $ they were getting before. this gonna help the funding of terrorism? well in a way *we* prefer?

if *you* believe manmade global warming *is* going tob e catostrophic, then buy a lot of land 100 miles in and wait for it to become ocean front.

[BrAinPaiNt]

so first it was just a callous lazy mankind in general that was the cause of global warming. seems now you're saying it's all the use of oils' fault.

if we double or triple the cost of oil we just give the arab community 2-3x the $ they were getting before. this gonna help the funding of terrorism? well in a way *we* prefer?

if *you* believe manmade global warming *is* going tob e catostrophic, then buy a lot of land 100 miles in and wait for it to become ocean front.

I believe he said "if YOU believe in man made Global warming"

Also the very thing you stated is just another reason to ween ourselves off depending on foreign oil.

The point he is making is that the only way we will ween ourselves off of foreign oil is if the prices get too high in a sudden surge.

If they just climb at the current rate we will just keep on buying the oil/gas for our current vehicles like we do now.

The current prices are high but they could be MUCH higher.

Let's face it...if it were not for our dependence on foreign oil we would not have a vested interest in the middle east over the last 50+ years.

[iceberg]

I believe he said "if YOU believe in man made Global warming"

Also the very thing you stated is just another reason to ween ourselves off depending on foreign oil.

The point he is making is that the only way we will ween ourselves off of foreign oil is if the prices get too high in a sudden surge.

If they just climb at the current rate we will just keep on buying the oil/gas for our current vehicles like we do now.

The current prices are high but they could be MUCH higher.

Let's face it...if it were not for our dependence on foreign oil we would not have a vested interest in the middle east over the last 50+ years.

but are these:
1. things to avoid, never should have gone there.
2. necessary in our own evolution regardless of the dependancies it creates
3. something to be ashamed of or understood vs. your point of view

my understanding has always been that while there are other alternatives, the cost of it vs. the convenience of what we have was too far apart. that gap has closed quite a bit and you're seeing more and more hybred cars.

evolution in action?

bp, all our lives we've done something XYZ way and the process was there, the payment, the "cost of living" around it - all set and figured into our lifestyles. when it get rough, while it can be easy to say "let's do something different" it's NOT that easy to engrane that into our culture.

last week a friend drove to lunch in his new car. lexus hybred. so the cost is coming down w/o a loss of convience. NOW we can start the shift.

someone mentioned tax credits - why not? the goal is to make it affordable and no real lose of functionality. so if a hybred costs $5k more to get, why not get a tax break on that $5k?

we will still need to get to the bigger vehicles then for someone like me. 6'4", 330. not gonna fit in too many prius toyotas, am i? i'm used to my truck and have allocated my income to ensure my use of it isn't a big deal on me.

if you triple the cost of gas w/o giving me an alternative i'm accustomed to, then what? am i screwed cause i'm a big guy and cars for the little people don't help me? at times it does seem to be a tommy hilfiger world. : )

we can and *should* be looking for other and better means. i do think we're behind on that but we're also incentive driven and no car maker is going to risk their customer base on a forced step "forward".

this is a great time to start that move, that "evolution" because of the war on terrorism. the message can be driven that one way to fight back is to not *need* their product.

the cost itself - it's spawned other technologies now simply because gas isn't the "cheapest" out there now, only most used.

add in that we've become an instant gratification society these days, long term change isn't as acceptable as it used to be. however, that doesn't make short term change feasable just cause we want it *now*.

but i am glad we're moving in that direction finally.

[Eric_Boyer]

someone mentioned tax credits - why not? the goal is to make it affordable and no real lose of functionality. so if a hybred costs $5k more to get, why not get a tax break on that $5k?


Actually I did address this.

Beginning in 1992 we reached a tipping point of sorts. 50% of American's don't pay payroll taxes. It is also the 50% most likely to modify consumer habits based on financial concerns.

If we are saying that fossil fuels are the source of the problem then evaluate why our nation consumes so much more fossil fuels. The answer is obvious - our great society increases consumption of fossil fuels. So the ironic aspect of this is the same people that favor great society programs are also the same people convinced that global warming is man made. Yet they refuse to see the significance.

[jterrell]

Actually I did address this.

Beginning in 1992 we reached a tipping point of sorts. 50% of American's don't pay payroll taxes. It is also the 50% most likely to modify consumer habits based on financial concerns.

If we are saying that fossil fuels are the source of the problem then evaluate why our nation consumes so much more fossil fuels. The answer is obvious - our great society increases consumption of fossil fuels. So the ironic aspect of this is the same people that favor great society programs are also the same people convinced that global warming is man made. Yet they refuse to see the significance.

Eric,

I am not sure I am following you correctly here.

The 50% of the constituency that doesn't pay taxes is unlikely to change our consumption. It is the tax paying folks who can afford the mcmansions and big cars. I think you have your arguments confused here.

A higher tax break for eco-friendly cars is a good start as is tax benefits to makers of eco-friendly cars. Make is cost-effective at purchase as well as over time in gas savings.

All that said I am planning on getting a V8 Dodge Challenger when it comes out:)
Eco-friendly cars just seem ghey.

hehehehe.

And I am not living in a less than 2k square foot house again unless a terrible change occurs.

But I will gladly use phosphorescent lights, buy green electricity, recycles plastics and glass.

[jterrell]

and BP do not get me started:)

you know I think big business, oil companies especially are why we do not move to a more eco-friendly means of transportation.

[Eric_Boyer]

Eric,

I am not sure I am following you correctly here.

The 50% of the constituency that doesn't pay taxes is unlikely to change our consumption. It is the tax paying folks who can afford the mcmansions and big cars. I think you have your arguments confused here.

The 50% that don't pay taxes are the driving force behind our increased consumption. The reason they don't pay taxes is because we are redistributing money to them so they can consume more goods then they normally would consume.

My argument is that if man made global warming is real, it is caused by consumption, and the liberal Great Society Programs are designed to increase consumption.

[jterrell]

The 50% that don't pay taxes are the driving force behind our increased consumption. The reason they don't pay taxes is because we are redistributing money to them so they can consume more goods then they normally would consume.

My argument is that if man made global warming is real, it is caused by consumption, and the liberal Great Society Programs are designed to increase consumption.

Eric,
First you have got to get your numbers right bro or all this is a meaningless exercise.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506100002

excerpted from above...
While O'Reilly claimed that half of all Americans do not pay income taxes, figures from the Tax Policy Center show that only 37.2 percent of total tax units -- single people or married couples -- pay either zero or negative taxes, or do not file at all, leaving 62.8 percent who do pay taxes.

O'Reilly's claim that the "the other half is waging the whole war on terror" is also false. Most Americans are funding the federal government's expenses, including military spending and foreign aid, though Social Security payroll taxes. The vast majority* of wage-earning Americans pay Social Security taxes on those wages, and as the Congressional Budget Office explains: "Although separate taxes are collected for Social Security, the money left over after benefits are paid is used to fund other government programs or to pay down the debt held by the public." In 2004, that surplus was $151.1 billion, approximately 6.6 percent of the total outlays of the federal government. By contrast, President Bush requested $82 billion in February to fund U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Previously, Congress had allocated $25 billion during fiscal 2005 for those operations.

Further, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) reportedPDF file in February 2004 that 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000.
-------------------------\\\\\

Further the 35 or so percent who do not pay taxes are buying only very cheap, mostly temporary goods. They are not buying big houses or new, nice cars for the most part. They generally live in parts of town the rest of us would not and drive vehicles the majority of us would not.
Are they consumers? Sure. Do they put jewelry on? Many times, yes. Do they pimp out their rides? Sure. But for the most part that isn't really consumption.

I am the one that is afflicted with excess consumption because I can afford to be.

[jterrell]

In case that didn't hit home 37.5 % of people do not pay payroll tax, although they do pay into social security if they have a job and earn more than 9K per year. But the real kicker is 61% of corporations paid NO taxes between 1996 and 2000.

If you hate welfare, then look no further than at businesses.

[Eric_Boyer]

Eric,
First you have got to get your numbers right bro or all this is a meaningless exercise.

My figures come from the IRS. 50% pay 96.03% of taxes.

Not once did I quote O'reilly (nor do I watch his show).

[AtlCB]

In case that didn't hit home 37.5 % of people do not pay payroll tax, although they do pay into social security if they have a job and earn more than 9K per year. But the real kicker is 61% of corporations paid NO taxes between 1996 and 2000.

If you hate welfare, then look no further than at businesses.Corporations pay taxes if they make a profit. Corporations that do not make a profit do not pay taxes. This is not welfare. If the corporations received money from the government, it would be considered welfare.

Even if a corporation doesn't pay income taxes, they still must pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes on their assets, etc. Owners of the company must also pay income taxes whenever they receive a dividend or sell their shares for more than they purchased.

There is no free ride here.

[iceberg]

Eric,

I am not sure I am following you correctly here.

The 50% of the constituency that doesn't pay taxes is unlikely to change our consumption. It is the tax paying folks who can afford the mcmansions and big cars. I think you have your arguments confused here.

A higher tax break for eco-friendly cars is a good start as is tax benefits to makers of eco-friendly cars. Make is cost-effective at purchase as well as over time in gas savings.

All that said I am planning on getting a V8 Dodge Challenger when it comes out:)
Eco-friendly cars just seem ghey.

hehehehe.

And I am not living in a less than 2k square foot house again unless a terrible change occurs.

But I will gladly use phosphorescent lights, buy green electricity, recycles plastics and glass.

a 2k house is just fine for me.

ditto on the challenger. would also consider an SRT Charger. ordered a dozen low watt lights to try it out and if someone wants to recycle they can go through my garbage.

[Eric_Boyer]

Corporations pay taxes if they make a profit. Corporations that do not make a profit do not pay taxes. This is not welfare. If the corporations received money from the government, it would be considered welfare.

Even if a corporation doesn't pay income taxes, they still must pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes on their assets, etc. Owners of the company must also pay income taxes whenever they receive a dividend or sell their shares for more than they purchased.

There is no free ride here.

correct - except it is reporting a profit. you can reinvest in the corporation and make the books appear to not make a profit when they truly do.

[AtlCB]

correct - except it is reporting a profit. you can reinvest in the corporation and make the books appear to not make a profit when they truly do.
Not true. If a corporation re-invests the money, this amount is recorded as an asset and doesn't affect the income statement.

[Eric_Boyer]

Not true. If a corporation re-invests the money, this amount is recorded as an asset and doesn't affect the income statement.

or they pay huge bonus's to a few select people in the company.

I'm pretty sure that effects the income statement. ;)

(as does depreciating the new asset)

[arglebargle]

Eric, that is not quite the same as 50% pay NO taxes. Without a further breakdown, that statistic could be taken to say that 50% of the population do not do well enough to pay a large percentage of the tax. I doubt that 50% of the population is unemployed. To really dig into this though, you would need a lot more information. Otherwise it is too close to sloganeering.

[Eric_Boyer]

Eric, that is not quite the same as 50% pay NO taxes. Without a further breakdown, that statistic could be taken to say that 50% of the population do not do well enough to pay a large percentage of the tax. I doubt that 50% of the population is unemployed. To really dig into this though, you would need a lot more information. Otherwise it is too close to sloganeering.


I rounded. 53% pay all income taxes. If 100 million people are accounting for 3% of the taxes, they are virtually paying nothing and programs that call on tax reductions mean virtually nothing.

[arglebargle]

My experiance in a decade of working for a legislature was that corporations were a lot less interested in setting an even playing field than they were in enshrining their particular advantages into law.

[arglebargle]

I rounded. 53% pay all income taxes. If 100 million people are accounting for 3% of the taxes, they are virtually paying nothing and programs that call on tax reductions mean virtually nothing.


What I am saying is that if 50% per cent of the population is paying only 3% of the taxes, then too many of those 50% are not doing well enough in our system. Barring those with really creative Tax Account teams. I agree that for those 50% tax reductions don't matter much. But I think it brings up different issues. Not sure whether the 'Tax Credit' idea for efficiency works, if it is not applied far wider than Prius look alikes. Gas taxes, on the other hand, while they may be a great idea, would get you canned out of office so fast, they'd barely have time to call you 'Gray Davi....'


I also recall, sometime in the '80's (I think) I saw a piece where Johnny Unitas showed reporters how he did his taxes, and paid no income tax. He was a good money manager, and was a millionaire. He used all sorts of tax doges and loopholes to shelter all his money. He was pretty vehement about how he thought that this was just wrong, but that everything he did was legal and aboveboard.

So Johnny U would have counted as part of that 50%, even though he was very well off.

[jterrell]

My figures come from the IRS. 50% pay 96.03% of taxes.

Not once did I quote O'reilly (nor do I watch his show).

please do link me your numbers.

The tax center above showed actual tax records.

[jterrell]

Corporations pay taxes if they make a profit. Corporations that do not make a profit do not pay taxes. This is not welfare. If the corporations received money from the government, it would be considered welfare.

Even if a corporation doesn't pay income taxes, they still must pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes on their assets, etc. Owners of the company must also pay income taxes whenever they receive a dividend or sell their shares for more than they purchased.

There is no free ride here.

Come on bro, seriously.
A company can always make a profit margin disappear.

I worked for a hole in the wall eatery in college.
The place finally made a pretty good profit and the owner quickly built on a second floor so she wouldn't have to pay taxes. Nevermind that it put a lot of college students out of work for like 3 months and stopped all profits, it kept her from paying taxes....

A business can give everyone raises then pay no taxes.

Sales tax is paid by the consumer not the business.
It is absolutely a free ride.

Only when an owner gets taxes as individual income do they really pay taxes.

One of the best gigs going is the non-profit organization.
Get all kinds of tax breaks and pay out huge salaries to board members....

Individuals pay properties taxes as well.

[zrinkill]

I do not see whats wrong with the idea .... I was just trying to find a way to make people who do not believe the whole "man made global warming scare", (like me) a reason to buy hybrid vehicles.

[Sasquatch]

I do not see whats wrong with the idea .... I was just trying to find a way to make people who do not believe the whole "man made global warming scare", (like me) a reason to buy hybrid vehicles.

Well, we know much you care about the military and soldiers. Wouldn't one incentive be to make further oil wars masquerading as wars against terrorists unnecessary? Granted, that's not a tax cut or anything.

If you absolutely need a financial incentive, though, i have read that over the lifetime of the car you'll more than make up for the cost with savings on gas. Of course, a conventional car with excellent mileage may offer the best choice.

[zrinkill]

Well, we know much you care about the military and soldiers. Wouldn't one incentive be to make further oil wars masquerading as wars against terrorists unnecessary? Granted, that's not a tax cut or anything.

So you are ignoring what I said so you can spout your silly agenda huh?

I know how you feel about the soldiers and the military .... so do not play that crap with me.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So you are ignoring what I said so you can spout your silly agenda huh?

I know how you feel about the soldiers and the military .... so do not play that crap with me.

He has an agenda and I will not dispute that.

However he does bring up a good point.

The less consumption and dependence on oil, the less we have to invest in the middle east. By invest I not only mean monetarily but militarily and politically as well.

[zrinkill]

The less consumption and dependence on oil, the less we have to invest in the middle east. By invest I not only mean monetarily but militarily and politically as well.

But that is not what I was saying when I started this thread. I was pointing out a way to make people who do not believe in the "man made global warming scare" a reason to buy a very expensive Hybrid.

As far as not being reliant on the Middle East ...... its real simple .... drill in Alaska

But some people will not allow that.

Wonder why?

[Ben_n_austin]

I don't think hybrids will save the Earth. Your line of thinking is part of the problem - you are looking at tax saving designed to spur on consumption.


If you truly believe manmade global warming is going to be catostrophic, you need to argue for doubling or tripling of the cost of oil, yet our foreign policy has always been designed around reducing the costs of oil.


Off the bat, it's a start in the process of turning the wheels in the right direction.

[Ben_n_austin]

But that is not what I was saying when I started this thread. I was pointing out a way to make people who do not believe in the "man made global warming scare" a reason to buy a very expensive Hybrid.

As far as not being reliant on the Middle East ...... its real simple .... drill in Alaska

But some people will not allow that.

Wonder why?

Well, we know why. Because the Republicans put up weak efforts to combat wimpy environmentalists so that they can do things that we couldn't do in Alaska--since we own it--like embrace our Military Industrial Complex.

There is more money in the Middle East--and having our own oil gives our country equity. We already know Saudi Arabia fudges the amount of oil that they have in the ground.

I know this to be true from a petroleum engineer who understand the linguistics of getting the stuff out of the ground, but also how they account for what they "think" they have.

And the Sauidi's are known for exaggerating.

[iceberg]

He has an agenda and I will not dispute that.

However he does bring up a good point.

The less consumption and dependence on oil, the less we have to invest in the middle east. By invest I not only mean monetarily but militarily and politically as well.

and this is a time we will work through. but all through the ages mankind has fought for resources, right? have we evolved past being "mankind"?

not yet.

so while it's lofty to dream of a new world order and think it's just as easy as waking up and wa-la, done, it's not.

we've been dependant on oil for a hundred years. this won't turn on a dime no matter how mad you get at where you are.

[Sasquatch]

So you are ignoring what I said so you can spout your silly agenda huh?

I know how you feel about the soldiers and the military .... so do not play that crap with me.

I was actually being sincere for once and suggesting a non-financial reason that might be of interest to you personally. Hump. :p:

[jterrell]

and this is a time we will work through. but all through the ages mankind has fought for resources, right? have we evolved past being "mankind"?

not yet.

so while it's lofty to dream of a new world order and think it's just as easy as waking up and wa-la, done, it's not.

we've been dependent on oil for a hundred years. this won't turn on a dime no matter how mad you get at where you are.

We've actually only been very dependent on Arab oil about 50 years. We've been in bed with Saudi Arabia hardcore since the 1970's.

Oil is finite so we know we know we have to find alternatives but millions are being spent to keep us slurping oil. Car companies made a few hybrids and they couldn't keep them in stock. The Civic's were sold 6 to 8 months in advance. Yet, other companies kept pushing non eco-friendly rides. Why?

Because it a boon for car companies if we all decide to buy one more gas guzzler each before taking action. Leave the consumer stuck with those gas guzzlers and sell them all another car; this one eco-friendly.

I know it's happening but honestly I just can't see myself driving a small chick car.

-------------------

I test drove a V6 Charger and was unimpressed. My Durango has more power by far. I would consider a V8 Charger but I am gonna hold out for the more classic looking Challenger middle of next year.

[AbeBeta]

I know it's happening but honestly I just can't see myself driving a small chick car.


Ya see. That's what happens when you have to compensate. Me, I feel just as much a man driving my wife's VW Golf as I do my truck.

[burmafrd]

Hey guys, If I cannot use FOX News you cannot use Media Matters- which is a Hilary offshoot. Media Matters is a propaganda site just like MoveOn.org

http://www.themediareport.com/mediamatters.htm

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/06/media-matters-lies-about-has-response-to-jamilgate/

http://patterico.com/2007/01/06/media-matters-distorts-something-yawn/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906573/posts

This one is good for going after all types of media liars

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/media_dishonesty_matters.html

[burmafrd]

People thinking that we can walk away from the Middle East forget our commitments to our so called allies. WE do not use Middle East oil. We get our foreign oil from Mexico, Canada, Venezuela. BUt Europe and Japan and others get it from the Middle East.

[burmafrd]

I have to laugh at those claiming the Republicans are responsible for us not drilling for oil off Florida, California, or in the Gulf (where mexico IS drilling), or in Alaska. The Democrats are the real road blocks there.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I have to laugh at those claiming the Republicans are responsible for us not drilling for oil off Florida, California, or in the Gulf (where mexico IS drilling), or in Alaska. The Democrats are the real road blocks there.

The democrats have not controlled congress in years...are you really going to blame those that have no power.

Even now when they have the majority they are still to screwed up to use it.

[AtlCB]

Come on bro, seriously.
A company can always make a profit margin disappear.

I worked for a hole in the wall eatery in college.
The place finally made a pretty good profit and the owner quickly built on a second floor so she wouldn't have to pay taxes. Nevermind that it put a lot of college students out of work for like 3 months and stopped all profits, it kept her from paying taxes....

A business can give everyone raises then pay no taxes.

Sales tax is paid by the consumer not the business.
It is absolutely a free ride.

Only when an owner gets taxes as individual income do they really pay taxes.

One of the best gigs going is the non-profit organization.
Get all kinds of tax breaks and pay out huge salaries to board members....

Individuals pay properties taxes as well.If she built a second floor just to prevent paying taxes, that is idiotic. She would lose a lot of more money than the taxes would have been.

A company is in business to make money. Most companies would not give everyone a raise just to avoid paying taxes. If they did, they wouldn't be in business very long.

Individuals do pay property taxes. They pay taxes on their houses, cars, and boats. If you were a corporation, you would have to pay property taxes on your furniture, computers, appliances, tools, vacuum cleaner, and other household items.

As a consumer, you do pay the sales taxes. You also pay the rest of the taxes as well. Most of the taxes paid by a corporation are absorbed by the consumer - not the owners. You should read up on microeconomics.

[Doomsday101]

The democrats have not controlled congress in years...are you really going to blame those that have no power.

Even now when they have the majority they are still to screwed up to use it.

But just like the Dem the Rep did not have the 2/3 majority that it takes to pass legislation

[iceberg]

Ya see. That's what happens when you have to compensate. Me, I feel just as much a man driving my wife's VW Golf as I do my truck.

and i feel like andre the giant when i get in my friends eclipse. she likes to drive sometimes and that's all well and good, but getting in and out of the "smaller car" isn't the joy of life for us all.

[AbeBeta]

and i feel like andre the giant when i get in my friends eclipse. she likes to drive sometimes and that's all well and good, but getting in and out of the "smaller car" isn't the joy of life for us all.

There are compromises between an SUV and an Eclipse - I'm 6'2" and I find the VW Golf very roomy - I've had people as big as 6'5" sit comfortably in the back seat with a 6'0" person in front of them. Really depends on the quality of construction as much as the size of the car.

[iceberg]

There are compromises between an SUV and an Eclipse - I'm 6'2" and I find the VW Golf very roomy - I've had people as big as 6'5" sit comfortably in the back seat with a 6'0" person in front of them. Really depends on the quality of construction as much as the size of the car.

6'4, 320-330?

getting in and out of small cars for me has become a circus act that's likely to make me cramp up. granted i need to exersize more and hopefully i'll have energy for that soon (going on cpap) but for those of us who want to be comfortable while driving, smaller cars are simply not an option. as long as it's affordable we'll keep at it.

someone wants to sell me a truck that gets 30mpg and i fit in it, we'll talk. i'm all for it but i'm not all for sardining myself into a vehicle.

[AbeBeta]

6'4, 320-330?

getting in and out of small cars for me has become a circus act that's likely to make me cramp up. granted i need to exersize more and hopefully i'll have energy for that soon (going on cpap) but for those of us who want to be comfortable while driving, smaller cars are simply not an option. as long as it's affordable we'll keep at it.

someone wants to sell me a truck that gets 30mpg and i fit in it, we'll talk. i'm all for it but i'm not all for sardining myself into a vehicle.

No one has ever called me skinny.

Looks like there are quite a large number of SUVs fitting that bill ... http://www.hybridcars.com/cars.html

[jterrell]

Hey guys, If I cannot use FOX News you cannot use Media Matters- which is a Hilary offshoot. Media Matters is a propaganda site just like MoveOn.org

http://www.themediareport.com/mediamatters.htm

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/06/media-matters-lies-about-has-response-to-jamilgate/

http://patterico.com/2007/01/06/media-matters-distorts-something-yawn/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906573/posts

This one is good for going after all types of media liars

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/media_dishonesty_matters.html



fair enough burma.

I honestly didn't know that but do see that is accurate.
I will use other sources.

[jterrell]

Ya see. That's what happens when you have to compensate. Me, I feel just as much a man driving my wife's VW Golf as I do my truck.

My wife has a mini-van. I have driven that without too much issue but it sucks when you are used to having more power.

I pull a boat in my Durango. Good luck doing that in a VW Golf.

And you have a truck, if two VW golfs will do by all means trade it in for a second....

:laugh2:

[iceberg]

No one has ever called me skinny.

Looks like there are quite a large number of SUVs fitting that bill ... http://www.hybridcars.com/cars.html

the mercury marinner looks pretty cool. i've just been a mopar man all my life and my truck - i paid cash for it and have not had payments in 4 years. ya get used to that. but, 112k miles on my truck and it's going strong - we'll just see what happens.

[Sasquatch]

The democrats have not controlled congress in years...are you really going to blame those that have no power.

No surprising, really, when you consider all the other scapegoats for the ills of our society ... poor people, immigrants, war protesters, etc. It's rarely the fault of those who actually wield political and financial power and make the decisions that affect this country.

[iceberg]

No surprising, really, when you consider all the other scapegoats for the ills of our society ... poor people, immigrants, war protesters, etc. It's rarely the fault of those who actually wield political and financial power and make the decisions that affect this country.

and maybe it's just a tough thankless job so few people want anymore due to a plethora of people willing to critisize but never do anything that would amount to being responsible for their own actions.

we can all be backseat presidents.

[AtlCB]

No surprising, really, when you consider all the other scapegoats for the ills of our society ... poor people, immigrants, war protesters, etc. It's rarely the fault of those who actually wield political and financial power and make the decisions that affect this country.
Individuals should be responsible for their own actions, and leaders should be responsible for thier decisions. I get sick and tired of people blaming society as an excuse for hurting others.

I always found it ironic that the most violent protestors today are the anti-war protestors and the anti-abortionists. Society did not make them this way. They choose to act this way.

[iceberg]

Individuals should be responsible for their own actions, and leaders should be responsible for thier decisions. I get sick and tired of people blaming society as an excuse for hurting others.

I always found it ironic that the most violent protestors today are the anti-war protestors and the anti-abortionists. Society did not make them this way. They choose to act this way.

i'd have to agree. for the most part our leaders do the best they can in any given situation but they can't be held responsible for every problem we face today. to role of government is to "help us" not "give us a free ride". unfortunately there are some who now view the government as something/someone to blame when things go wrong. these "violent" anti-violence protestors are a good example of what's wrong with this country.

during vietnam, the only 2 things i still remember clearly is the violence. not in vietnam, but here in the states. the colleges and the spitting on soldiers coming home. even as a child it seemed odd to me that someone can berate violence to the degree *they* get violent, yet they don't see they're furthering the problem, not slowing it down.

GIVE ME PEACE OR I'LL KICK YOUR TAIL!!! just never made sense to me.

the other thing was the bracelets. my sister had one and she wore it for quite some time. these were MIA bracelets where when your soldier was found, if alive you put a sticker on your bracelet. if "recovered" you put a different colored sticker there.

look around today. people call bush a liar over and over and over again. yet they lie left and right about it. gitmo=gulag.

i see no "liberal" has picked up that challenge to defend. it was a huge LIE but yet, it's ok to lie about a liar while in the same breathe calling them a liar.

bp has this "Code" that says we must act better than the enemy and to a huge degree, i agree. but we can't even act civil to our countrymen if we disagree politically. we're far too willing to divide ourselves up in some phantom war to get some meaningless victory that will be fought for shortly again anyway by the side now "out" of power.

the agenda driven are usually the most blind and in turn, most frustrating to deal with. how do you tell someone blinded by their own "beliefs" that a lie is a lie regardless of who does it? how do you tell someone who refuses to see good in someone that good *could* be there if you give it a chance? how do you get someone who's only goal is to sound intelligent to "be" intelligent?

in the end, how do we put back together what selfish motives are tearing apart?

whoever wins this election, i'll do my best to see their point of view and why they're doing what they're doing. if bush's presidency has shown me anything at all it's that you have to look past what you see to get to the real story and unfortunately, 90% of the people judge 100% of the things on 10% knowledge of it.

they then use that 10% to fill out their 90%, not find out what else there is to learn.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It is our duty as Americans to always question government and those in power when they start getting too much power.

It is not just Bush and company. It is any President or party that gains too much power.

Personal Responsibility is always a rally cry...if it fits ones own opinion on the matter.

I could make an argument that it is your personal responsibility to find a better vehicle that takes up less natural resources and not the manufacturers to build a bigger vehicle because you are a big guy. See how personal responsibility can be turned around?

Not ripping on you so don't take it that way. Just playing devils advocate and giving and example.

We would all rather have personal responsibility be the best method. Yet at the same time we have many that will follow lock stock and barrel whatever President or party tells us is the way things should be.

Hard for a group to preach personal responsibility when it would seem they (presidents and political parties) give such a poor example of it.

[iceberg]

It is our duty as Americans to always question government and those in power when they start getting too much power.

It is not just Bush and company. It is any President or party that gains too much power.

Personal Responsibility is always a rally cry...if it fits ones own opinion on the matter.

I could make an argument that it is your personal responsibility to find a better vehicle that takes up less natural resources and not the manufacturers to build a bigger vehicle because you are a big guy. See how personal responsibility can be turned around?

Not ripping on you so don't take it that way. Just playing devils advocate and giving and example.

We would all rather have personal responsibility be the best method. Yet at the same time we have many that will follow lock stock and barrel whatever President or party tells us is the way things should be.

Hard for a group to preach personal responsibility when it would seem they (presidents and political parties) give such a poor example of it.

i'm not saying "don't question government" i'm saying 'don't use methods you denounce in this admin *against* this admin.

if bush is a liar that doesn't make lying about gitmo ok. if lying is bad, DO NOT DO IT. but unfortunately i see too many people "hate" bush and feel whatever it takes is ok cause, it's bush.

that is what i'm saying and i don't think you're saying it's ok to lie about a "liar" are you? if "we" are to be better than our enemy "we" need a cohesive front. i'm not saying don't question our government; i'm sayiing there are constructive ways to do it and there are 'shortcut' (wrong) ways to do it.

it's hard for me to listen to politicians say say "CONSERVE!" while they fly private planes around to debates and functions. i don't see many politicians *at all* being personally responsible, so it's not like bush is the lone ranger of this problem.

as for your example, let's look more closely. i pay the price to maintain my bigger vehicle. i don't sell drugs to support it, i don't have to have government help to maintain it, *i* bear 100% of the cost based on todays environment.

how is that *not* personally responsible? i use more resources, i pay more. when the time comes i can't pay it i'll look at options. one could well be to build a "better mouse trap". so i guess i don't see how this is turned to the point where i'm not being personally reponsible, but i do understand your general point.

however, my point is don't call someone a liar if you're going to lie about them.

[AtlCB]

It is our duty as Americans to always question government and those in power when they start getting too much power.

It is not just Bush and company. It is any President or party that gains too much power.

Personal Responsibility is always a rally cry...if it fits ones own opinion on the matter.

I could make an argument that it is your personal responsibility to find a better vehicle that takes up less natural resources and not the manufacturers to build a bigger vehicle because you are a big guy. See how personal responsibility can be turned around?

Not ripping on you so don't take it that way. Just playing devils advocate and giving and example.

We would all rather have personal responsibility be the best method. Yet at the same time we have many that will follow lock stock and barrel whatever President or party tells us is the way things should be.

Hard for a group to preach personal responsibility when it would seem they (presidents and political parties) give such a poor example of it.I think both you and ice posted what I was writing. Leaders should be responsible for their decisions, and individuals should be held responsible the theirs. Whenever a party has power for a long period of time, corruption seems to run rampant. The Democrats and Republicans have both shown an inability to handle power for a long period of time without becoming corrupt. On the other hand, individuals cannot justify hurting others or making other poor decisions by claiming the government neglected, influence, or failed to do something. I brought up the anti-war and anti-abortion protestors to show this point. Both groups have gotten out of hand and blamed the government - instead of themselves. Another example are some in the inner cities. They believe the government and white people are against them, so they steal, rape, murder, and sell drugs to other inner city minorities. :confused:

[BrAinPaiNt]

as for your example, let's look more closely. i pay the price to maintain my bigger vehicle. i don't sell drugs to support it, i don't have to have government help to maintain it, *i* bear 100% of the cost based on todays environment.

how is that *not* personally responsible? i use more resources, i pay more. when the time comes i can't pay it i'll look at options. one could well be to build a "better mouse trap". so i guess i don't see how this is turned to the point where i'm not being personally reponsible, but i do understand your general point.

however, my point is don't call someone a liar if you're going to lie about them.

You prove the point I was making about "personal responsibility" if it fits your own opinion.

You say you pay the price for your vehicle, pay for the upkeep, do not sell drugs to support it, you pay more in gas and so on. So you say since you are footing the bill it is personal responsibility.

However if you think about it in another angle, as I was trying to get at, you are not taking personal responsibility in the areas of getting a car that is better on gas mileage. In doing so you are not taking responsibility in helping the environment, you are not helping to ween yourself of the dependency of foreign oil either because you, by your own actions, are actually consuming more foreign oil in the name of personal comfort as opposed to being in a more fuel efficient vehicle. You might not be selling drugs, but by giving more money to foreign oil you are helping to give money to nations that support and give money to terrorists or governments that do indeed use some of that money in the drug trade.

See what I am saying.

You can make an argument about personal responsibility in your favor, but at the same time I can make one against your favor. So personal responsibility is often a rallying cry IF it supports our own opinions and beliefs.

Now with all of that said...I doubt you would ever see me driving around in a prius unless it had a high end v-6 motor or better yet a nice v-8.

Spent too many years driving a little four banger and having to get a good running start just to get up the hill I live on.

So I, just like everyone, has our own ideas of personal responsibility in order to justify our opinions.

[iceberg]

i guess *someone* would have to say i *need* to take it upon myself to fix my truck. it seems you're pushing a pesonal opinion to right or wrong.

if someone feels i should help the world by getting a smaller/more efficient car, that's an opinion. the 'common marketplace' will say how much it costs to go from one extreme to the other and i live within that.

if the government said i need a 20mpg vehicle by 2010 that would be at least an official standard to center around.

i make my money and i spend it accordingly as we all do. you *thinking* i should do more doesn't mean i either should or am less responsible.

i back into your fence, i fix it and make it right - responsible.
i back into your fence and hide it, i'm not.

[Sasquatch]

I think both you and ice posted what I was writing. Leaders should be responsible for their decisions, and individuals should be held responsible the theirs. Whenever a party has power for a long period of time, corruption seems to run rampant. The Democrats and Republicans have both shown an inability to handle power for a long period of time without becoming corrupt. On the other hand, individuals cannot justify hurting others or making other poor decisions by claiming the government neglected, influence, or failed to do something. I brought up the anti-war and anti-abortion protestors to show this point. Both groups have gotten out of hand and blamed the government - instead of themselves. Another example are some in the inner cities. They believe the government and white people are against them, so they steal, rape, murder, and sell drugs to other inner city minorities. :confused:

Anti-war protesters have gotten out of hand? How so exactly? World Series victory celebrations have been more destructive than any anti-war protest in recent years. Sounds like a politicized image that has little basis in reality to me.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Anti-war protesters have gotten out of hand? How so exactly? World Series victory celebrations have been more destructive than any anti-war protest in recent years. Sounds like a politicized image that has little basis in reality to me.

When you have a few nut bags (phelps) protesting at the funerals of soldiers...

When you had some protesters outside a military base/hospital protesting the war where all kinds of wounded vets can hear them...

That might be getting out of hand.

When you had war protesters during viet nam spitting on soldiers as they returned and calling them baby killers...that is out of hand.

When you have anti-abortion protesters blowing up buildings and putting others in danger...that is getting out of hand.

I believe the point he is making is that although a group may start out with the best intentions they can sometimes go over the line.

At least that is my interpretation of his post.

[BrAinPaiNt]

i guess *someone* would have to say i *need* to take it upon myself to fix my truck. it seems you're pushing a pesonal opinion to right or wrong.

if someone feels i should help the world by getting a smaller/more efficient car, that's an opinion. the 'common marketplace' will say how much it costs to go from one extreme to the other and i live within that.

if the government said i need a 20mpg vehicle by 2010 that would be at least an official standard to center around.

i make my money and i spend it accordingly as we all do. you *thinking* i should do more doesn't mean i either should or am less responsible.

i back into your fence, i fix it and make it right - responsible.
i back into your fence and hide it, i'm not.

Sure it is...we all have differing opinions of what is personal responsibility.

Which once again is what i was saying in the first place.

Personal responsibility is often praised or dismissed depending on what ones own opinion dictates.

If an activist groups protests or takes legal measures to protect trees, land and animals. They are taking a personal responsibility to do the best thing they can do to protect things that can not protect themselves.

Some will see this as a noble effort. I have a feeling you would see it as silly and call them hippy tree huggers or loony lefties.

However you could also make the argument that by them doing that they are not promoting personal responsibility by doing what ever they can to help use pass laws to drill for oil or use other natural resources on the areas they are protecting.

The idea of who is right or wrong would be held by the individual...however both could be seen as personal responsibility depending on whose view you happen to side on.

So as my original take says...Personal Responsibility is a rallying cry IF...IF it happens to fall in area you agree with.

[Sasquatch]

When you have a few nut bags (phelps) protesting at the funerals of soldiers...

When you had some protesters outside a military base/hospital protesting the war where all kinds of wounded vets can hear them...

That might be getting out of hand.

When you had war protesters during viet nam spitting on soldiers as they returned and calling them baby killers...that is out of hand.

When you have anti-abortion protesters blowing up buildings and putting others in danger...that is getting out of hand.

I believe the point he is making is that although a group may start out with the best intentions they can sometimes go over the line.

At least that is my interpretation of his post.

And yet the same generalizations never seem to apply when it comes to mass shootings, incidents of prisoner abuse, and the questionable uses of religion.

[BrAinPaiNt]

And yet the same generalizations never seem to apply when it comes to mass shootings, incidents of prisoner abuse, and the questionable uses of religion.

It won't for those that are so ingrained on one political spectrum that they only know how to argue for one thing and against the other.

That includes both the right and left.

One side does not justify the other IMO.

However it does if you are on one side of the political spectrum...at least people delude themselves into thinking that.:D

[Sasquatch]

It won't for those that are so ingrained on one political spectrum that they only know how to argue for one thing and against the other.

That includes both the right and left.

One side does not justify the other IMO.

However it does if you are on one side of the political spectrum...at least people delude themselves into thinking that.:D

I know not of what you speak. :p:

[iceberg]

And yet the same generalizations never seem to apply when it comes to mass shootings, incidents of prisoner abuse, and the questionable uses of religion.

you care to run with the gitmo=gulag lie? have at it.

[iceberg]

Sure it is...we all have differing opinions of what is personal responsibility.

Which once again is what i was saying in the first place.

Personal responsibility is often praised or dismissed depending on what ones own opinion dictates.

If an activist groups protests or takes legal measures to protect trees, land and animals. They are taking a personal responsibility to do the best thing they can do to protect things that can not protect themselves.

Some will see this as a noble effort. I have a feeling you would see it as silly and call them hippy tree huggers or loony lefties.

However you could also make the argument that by them doing that they are not promoting personal responsibility by doing what ever they can to help use pass laws to drill for oil or use other natural resources on the areas they are protecting.

The idea of who is right or wrong would be held by the individual...however both could be seen as personal responsibility depending on whose view you happen to side on.

So as my original take says...Personal Responsibility is a rallying cry IF...IF it happens to fall in area you agree with.

usually to me personal responsibility shouldn't ever really be a "rally cry". you do it or you don't. if i have to shout it out, i'm likely not doing it.

there's a baseline of right and wrong, bp, that doesn't flow from opinion to opinion usually. by being personally responsible, i'm not saying i'll fix the world, drive efficient cars and the like. i simply am saying i'll do the best i can and if i wrong someone along the way, *i* did it.

not bush. not the black man. not whitey - *i* did it. and then i'll make it right as best i can.

[BrAinPaiNt]

usually to me personal responsibility shouldn't ever really be a "rally cry". you do it or you don't. if i have to shout it out, i'm likely not doing it.

there's a baseline of right and wrong, bp, that doesn't flow from opinion to opinion usually. by being personally responsible, i'm not saying i'll fix the world, drive efficient cars and the like. i simply am saying i'll do the best i can and if i wrong someone along the way, *i* did it.

not bush. not the black man. not whitey - *i* did it. and then i'll make it right as best i can.

I think you really have missed my point all the way around.
I think you went off the point when you thought I was attacking you having a big truck instead of a fuel efficient car.

The point is many are willing to say that if people used personal responsibility we would all be better off.

We ALL have probably said it one time or another.

A few examples of something I bet at one time or another we have all said...

Kids today would be better off if the Parents were responsible for them instead of letting them do this or that.

I don't feel sorry for this person or that person...If this person or that person would take a little personal responsibility they would not be in the mess they are in now.


We all have done it...ALL.

Point I am making is it works much better, it is much easier to say and swallow when it is something we agree with.

Not so much if it is something we don't agree with.

That is just human nature.

[AtlCB]

Anti-war protesters have gotten out of hand? How so exactly? World Series victory celebrations have been more destructive than any anti-war protest in recent years. Sounds like a politicized image that has little basis in reality to me.
You must have forgot about some of the anti-war crowds becoming violent a few years back.

What does the World Series crowd have to do with this? They aren't protesting and they aren't blaming anyone for their awful behavior. They aren't claiming moral highground while destroying property and injuring others.

They do fall within the personal responsibility discussion. I only used the anti-war protestors and anti-abortion protestors to show how hypocritical both sides are. I believe people from the left should criticize the anti-war protestors for their actions, and people from the right should criticize the anti-abortion groups. As we have seen on this board, politics outweigh common sense and morality with a lot of the people who are tied to one party.

You should also be embarrassed by some of the interviewing of the anti-war protestors where these guys couldn't answer very basic questions like who is the leader of Iraq, what continent is Iraq located, name on bordering state, etc.

[AtlCB]

It won't for those that are so ingrained on one political spectrum that they only know how to argue for one thing and against the other.

That includes both the right and left.

One side does not justify the other IMO.

However it does if you are on one side of the political spectrum...at least people delude themselves into thinking that.:D

You have to find it humorous how the conservatives were against nation building and the liberals were defending it during the Clinton years. Now that Bush is in charge, conservatives are defending nation building and the liberals are against it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You have to find it humorous how the conservatives were against nation building and the liberals were defending it during the Clinton years. Now that Bush is in charge, conservatives are defending nation building and the liberals are against it.

You can give many examples of the hypocrisy.

The conservatives having their witch hunt against clinton and liberals hating it while conservatives love it.

Now the tables are turned and Bush is the target of the witch hunt and the liberals love and it and conservatives hate it.

When clinton was in power and got the line item veto that the conservatives hated but now the conservatives want it and the liberals don't.

When clinton was in power a republican said you can support the troops and not the president. Now when the liberals say that they are shunned and said to be unpatriotic.

You can go on and on with examples of how the parties change their view on some issues when they are in power.

[jterrell]

extremists suck no matter whose side they are on.

they don't help their own side by being the shining example of idiocy for the other side.

i am against the war in iraq but god bless the men and women fighting for us over there. it isn't their call to make and if they do suffer injury that lays at the feet of our leadership and is the real tragedy. they deserve better than to be insulted and certainly deserve better than being placed in a desert in iraq in harm's way.

[iceberg]

And yet the same generalizations never seem to apply when it comes to mass shootings, incidents of prisoner abuse, and the questionable uses of religion.

you care to run with the gitmo=gulag lie? have at it.

typical. ask for more proof/evidence/info and when you can't provide it, ignore the one asking.

RUN SASSY RUN!!!!! : )

[BrAinPaiNt]

typical. ask for more proof/evidence/info and when you can't provide it, ignore the one asking.

RUN SASSY RUN!!!!! : )

I will not defend his stance on Gitmo.

But there was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib.

You want proof of it...there are soldiers spending time in a military prison because of their role in it.

Sadly nobody from the CIA is spending time for it and I am pretty sure they were the ones instructing those soldiers.

[Sasquatch]

I will not defend his stance on Gitmo.

But there was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib.

You want proof of it...there are soldiers spending time in a military prison because of their role in it.

Sadly nobody from the CIA is spending time for it and I am pretty sure they were the ones instructing those soldiers.

When did I become the official spokesperson for Amnesty International? I will say this about the ignored poster's contention: there is a difference between using an inappropriate metaphor to describe something (Amnesty) and lying about factual matters (Rumsfled claiming to know EXACTLY where Iraqi WMD were hidden). Even if you don't subscribe to subtle distinctions it seems pretty weak to defend one wrong by referencing another.

[iceberg]

I will not defend his stance on Gitmo.

But there was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib.

You want proof of it...there are soldiers spending time in a military prison because of their role in it.

Sadly nobody from the CIA is spending time for it and I am pretty sure they were the ones instructing those soldiers.

i didn't say there were no examples of abuse - what went on there was wrong. period.

but calling bush a liar and then saying gitmo is the same as a gulag? i'm waiting for the line by line comparison to make that a true statement.

[iceberg]

When did I become the official spokesperson for Amnesty International? I will say this about the ignored poster's contention: there is a difference between using an inappropriate metaphor to describe something (Amnesty) and lying about factual matters (Rumsfled claiming to know EXACTLY where Iraqi WMD were hidden). Even if you don't subscribe to subtle distinctions it seems pretty weak to defend one wrong by referencing another.

so maybe rummy lied. does that make lying about him or bush "ok" now?

*this* is my point and yes, both sides do it and it bugs the ever-holy crap out of me.

gitmo = gulag and US soldiers taking a whiz on the koran caused riots across the world, over a lie. people died here over a lie also but it's "ok" because it makes bush look bad.

sassy boy just gets so tied up in "his" side all things are ok and good and the end will eventually justify his means regardless of if 'his side' uses the same tactics they denounce.

sas is about the biggest hypocrite i've ever seen online or elsewhere. i seem to recall on another board he, zrin (or thabigp) and i were talking and he would tell us of the car his parents bought for him. a few days later bush was evil because his wealth was given to him.

reminded about his car statement retracted. statement quoted and put back, he left.

now i'm just ignored because i pushed what he said for a final determination/answer and he couldn't do it. so just ignore the question.

sorry bp - i digress. but to hear someone spout out crap day after day and never back it up just simply run from the questions is about as cowardly as a person can act.

as for personal responsibility - actions such as this are anything but responsible but inflamitory. light a match, run away and ignore the consequences.