Ode to the Climate Science-Denier

[Timshel]

Lower optimum tax is not the only way to maintain revenue; they could also keep other options under wraps with their undue influence. Or they could just keep hiring the greens to villainize anything reasonable.

Just get off your stupid elitist planner fascist notions of stupidity.

Of course, in your dark world where the Jews are trying to give your job to a black/Hispanic person and ensure that your mom makes you do servile housework, all that conspiracy stuff seems very reasonable.

I acknowledged the point was valid. It would be something that we would have to watch for and your comment about keeping other options off the market might be one way they would try. But, that would not be too easy to conceal.

Don't worry, mommy will protect you from the bad naugahydes.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Of course, in your dark world where the Jews are trying to give your job to a black/Hispanic person and ensure that your mom makes you do servile housework, all that conspiracy stuff seems very reasonable.

I acknowledged the point was valid. It would be something that we would have to watch for and your comment about keeping other options off the market might be one way they would try. But, that would not be too easy to conceal.

Don't worry, mommy will protect you from the bad naugahydes.

But you're still in denial about other ways usage may be kept up by an economically interested fascist complex.

Sorry to break into your pollyanna braindead world with reality.

 

[Timshel]

But you're still in denial about other ways usage may be kept up by an economically interested fascist complex.

Sorry to break into your pollyanna braindead world with reality.

I have seen the light. Kill the Jooooooos!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I have seen the light. Kill the Jooooooos!

That's not what I'm suggesting. Im suggesting that taxing something to dissuade usage doesn't always work out well, because a government gets addicted to the income stream and then works covertly to defend it from alternatives. This is really just analysis here. Im just advocating that you think, not that anyone be murdered. Are you an idiot or something?

 

[Timshel]

That's not what I'm suggesting. Im suggesting that taxing something to dissuade usage doesn't always work out well, because a government gets addicted to the income stream and then works covertly to defend it from alternatives. This is really just analysis here. Im just advocating that you think, not that anyone be murdered. Are you an idiot or something?

I understand your point and concern. I don't even really disagree. The difference is you put way too much faith in the ability of government boobs to operate covertly and it is all part of your delusions concerning naugahyde fascists.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I understand your point and concern. I don't even really disagree. The difference is you put way too much faith in the ability of government boobs to operate covertly and it is all part of your delusions concerning naugahyde fascists.

so you don't even disagree. Why dont you just shut your idiot hole then?

 

[Timshel]

so you don't even disagree. Why dont you just shut your idiot hole then?

I am sure, if the Jews were not sending blocking signals to your brain you would have picked up on my agreement several posts ago.

I just don't think your concern is enough to make me move away from the distasteful choice of asking the government to tax oil. Global warming is a real problem even if you wish to ignore it and it is largely due to market failures in handling external costs. Your concern is enough that I would say we should watch out for it.

 

[imnoliber]

I definitely think we can get off oil. I fear too much government involvement will lead to a bad choice and create a new special interest group that will then block advancement of better choices. I would rather the government just tax oil more than have them too greatly involved in choosing the alternative.

Hey Stringbean, do you REALLY think that oil can pay taxes? It is the user of oil that pays taxes. Oil does not and cannot pay taxes. If you are inferring oil companies instead of oil, the same is true. Those companies can only pay taxes by charging the user of oil to obtain the funds to pay the taxes. Thus, us users, the public at large, are the ones paying your increase in taxes NOT OIL!!!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I am sure, if the Jews were not sending blocking signals to your brain you would have picked up on my agreement several posts ago.

I just don't think your concern is enough to make me move away from the distasteful choice of asking the government to tax oil. Global warming is a real problem even if you wish to ignore it and it is largely due to market failures in handling external costs. Your concern is enough that I would say we should watch out for it.

Because you're a fool just looking for a reason to implement another tax.

Global warming is a lie assholes tell to justify shitty policy.

 

[Timshel]

Hey Stringbean, do you REALLY think that oil can pay taxes? It is the user of oil that pays taxes. Oil does not and cannot pay taxes. If you are inferring oil companies instead of oil, the same is true. Those companies can only pay taxes by charging the user of oil to obtain the funds to pay the taxes. Thus, us users, the public at large, are the ones paying your increase in taxes NOT OIL!!!

Yeah, the consumer would pay the tax, making him look for alternatives to lower his fuel use. The consumer is burning the stuff and releasing the harmful emissions causing the external costs and so taxing them for that is justified.

 

[Timshel]

Because you're a fool just looking for a reason to implement another tax.

Yeah, because there is not a tax I don't like. I am really an evil Jew.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yeah, because there is not a tax I don't like. I am really an evil Jew.

Don't worry, you can renounce your malignant race-based faith and join the human race at any time.

Here's a script

"I renounce the racist god of israel and the asshole acts he wishes me to commit in his name."

 

[imnoliber]

Yeah, the consumer would pay the tax, making him look for alternatives to lower his fuel use. The consumer is burning the stuff and releasing the harmful emissions causing the external costs and so taxing them for that is justified.

Sure Stringbean, lets look at an example. Tax cigarettes to promote better health. Tax them at $5.00 a pack. You know what? The people using them are not looking for alternatives, they are only complaining at the unreasonable tax. NOW, lets tax gasoline at $10.00 per gallon. You start looking for an alternative. Not many available. You still have to get to work, so you pay the tax. THEN, if there are any alternatives out there, they look and say, my gasoline is $15.00 a gallon. We got to increase our price to be competitive.

Now, I will introduce another idea. I worked in alternative fuels for most of my working life. Natural gas is not really an alternative fuel. It comes from digging wells just like oil. I am not against natural gas, but it just simply cannot be labeled as an alternative fuel. The one and only really clean alternative fuel is hydrogen, and my lifetime of work was directed towards use of hydrogen. One big problem however that faced us when I started working and still faced us when I retired. Onboard storage of the fuel. There is simply no way known of making a hydrogen storage tank that works like a gasoline tank. You can fill the present hydrogen tanks in something like two to three hours (the most efficient and costly tanks that is presently available), and you would get about 100 miles on the road when you would have to stop to refill. Another two to three hours (and that is not counting the wait in line while all those others that are looking for alternatives are waiting ahead of you while a few at the head of the line are taking their two to three hours to fill their tanks.) To go from LA to Vegas would take you possibley 14 to 16 hours (requiring an overnight stay most likely.) I don't think many of those gamblers in LA would look for alternatives with that kind of travel necessitites, do you?

 

[imnoliber]

Yeah, because there is not a tax I don't like. I am really an evil Jew.

Ah, Stringbean, you come back to a favorate subject instead of debating the subject at hand. Nice avoidal. But now I will even go along with you to your favorate subject.

A police officer can arrest a person for any crime committed in the presence of the officer. If the offense is a misdeamenor, or even less, that misdemeanor or less must be committed in the presence of the officer to make an arrest. Overstaying ones visa is certainly in the same class as a misdemeanor (just a less offensive offense) and it certainly would require the offense to be committed in the presence of an officer for an officer to make an arrest. Now, lets say the officer stops you for jaywalking (certainly an offense that rates as low as a misdemeanor), and he or she asks you for identification. You show him you passport and visa, but the officer observes (in his or her presence) that you have overstayed your visa and are currently at the very time that the officer sees you still overstaying that visa. The officer can make an arrest under those circumstances. And that is all that the Arizona law requires.

Now, back to the discussion at hand if you don't object.

 

[Timshel]

Ah, Stringbean, you come back to a favorate subject instead of debating the subject at hand. Nice avoidal. But now I will even go along with you to your favorate subject.

Was not talking to you. A B conversation... I guess, you are new here, but nAHZi is nothing but a joke and so I don't bother treating his nonsense as worthy of much.

A police officer can arrest a person for any crime committed in the presence of the officer. If the offense is a misdeamenor, or even less, that misdemeanor or less must be committed in the presence of the officer to make an arrest. Overstaying ones visa is certainly in the same class as a misdemeanor (just a less offensive offense) and it certainly would require the offense to be committed in the presence of an officer for an officer to make an arrest. Now, lets say the officer stops you for jaywalking (certainly an offense that rates as low as a misdemeanor), and he or she asks you for identification. You show him you passport and visa, but the officer observes (in his or her presence) that you have overstayed your visa and are currently at the very time that the officer sees you still overstaying that visa. The officer can make an arrest under those circumstances. And that is all that the Arizona law requires.

Now, back to the discussion at hand if you don't object.

I don't know what this had to do with anything, maybe you are responding to my sig?

But nope. Jaywalking and illegal presence are civil offenses which are lesser offense than misdemeanors. That's why they don't arrest you for jaywalking, certainly not without a warrant, unless there is a legitimate reason to believe the suspect will evade the court's jurisdiction or fines.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Was not talking to you. A B conversation... I guess, you are new here, but nAHZi is nothing but a joke and so I don't bother treating his nonsense as worthy of much.

.

Yet i keep beating your stupid ass all up and down this board, dominating you in a most embarrassing fashion.

 

[imnoliber]

Was not talking to you. A B conversation... I guess, you are new here, but nAHZi is nothing but a joke and so I don't bother treating his nonsense as worthy of much.




I don't know what this had to do with anything, maybe you are responding to my sig?

But nope. Jaywalking and illegal presence are civil offenses which are lesser offense than misdemeanors. That's why they don't arrest you for jaywalking, certainly not without a warrant, unless there is a legitimate reason to believe the suspect will evade the court's jurisdiction or fines.

Sorry Stringbean about replying to you sig, but that stupid sig has to be responded to over and over and over again as long as you continue to use the stupid thing. Now, down to facts, the common law, under which all of the States operate (with the exception of Louisiana) makes the following distinctions. An arrest for all offenses that are considered to be felonies can be made on sufficient reasons to believe the felony occurred and the person who committed the felony is likely the person who is being arrested, the offense does not have to be committed in the presence of the officer. For all, and I emphasize all, other offenses including misdemeanors and lesser offenses, the offense must have been observed first hand by the officer, to arrest the offense must be committed in the presence of the officer.

Now let me tell you, if you get stopped for jaywalking you will not probably be arrested, but you could be. If the officer sees you walk down the street a few yards and jaywalk again. You will then likely be arrested and the officer certainly has the right to make that arrest.

 

[Timshel]

Sure Stringbean, lets look at an example. Tax cigarettes to promote better health. Tax them at $5.00 a pack. You know what? The people using them are not looking for alternatives, they are only complaining at the unreasonable tax. NOW, lets tax gasoline at $10.00 per gallon. You start looking for an alternative. Not many available. You still have to get to work, so you pay the tax. THEN, if there are any alternatives out there, they look and say, my gasoline is $15.00 a gallon. We got to increase our price to be competitive.

That's not really true. Lot's of people have quit because of the taxes and many young people will not start due to them.

But cigarettes are not the same as oil. The external costs of cigarettes are negligible (second hand smoke) and could only justify a very small tax. Some will argue that health care costs of the smoker are external costs, but they are not, even if the government attempts to make them so.

Further, cigarettes are physically addictive and there are not any real alternatives (nicotine gum satisfies the addiction but not the habits of smoking). That's not true with oil. Some argue we are addicted to oil, but not physically, they mean to imply financially addicted, which is a bad use of the word. If a supplier can satisfy my needs for fuel, I certainly have no attachment to oil. I would much rather not pollute the world and I am sure you do not have any desire to do that either. It is only chosen because it is cheap.

Now, I will introduce another idea. I worked in alternative fuels for most of my working life. Natural gas is not really an alternative fuel. It comes from digging wells just like oil. I am not against natural gas, but it just simply cannot be labeled as an alternative fuel. The one and only really clean alternative fuel is hydrogen, and my lifetime of work was directed towards use of hydrogen. One big problem however that faced us when I started working and still faced us when I retired. Onboard storage of the fuel. There is simply no way known of making a hydrogen storage tank that works like a gasoline tank. You can fill the present hydrogen tanks in something like two to three hours (the most efficient and costly tanks that is presently available), and you would get about 100 miles on the road when you would have to stop to refill. Another two to three hours (and that is not counting the wait in line while all those others that are looking for alternatives are waiting ahead of you while a few at the head of the line are taking their two to three hours to fill their tanks.) To go from LA to Vegas would take you possibley 14 to 16 hours (requiring an overnight stay most likely.) I don't think many of those gamblers in LA would look for alternatives with that kind of travel necessitites, do you?

There is little market incentive to find solutions when oil can be had so cheaply.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's not really true. Lot's of people have quit because of the taxes and many young people will not start due to them.

But cigarettes are not the same as oil. The external costs of cigarettes are negligible (second hand smoke) and could only justify a very small tax. Some will argue that health care costs of the smoker are external costs, but they are not, even if the government attempts to make them so.

Further, cigarettes are physically addictive and there are not any real alternatives (nicotine gum satisfies the addiction but not the habits of smoking). That's not true. Some argue we are addicted to oil, but not physically, they mean to imply financially addicted, which is a bad use of the word. If a supplier can satisfy my needs for fuel, I certainly have no attachment to oil. I would much rather not pollute the world and I am sure you do not have any desire to do that either. It is only chosen because it is cheap.



There is little market incentive to find solutions when oil can be had so cheaply.

Look fucknut, changing behavior through onerous taxation a mongoloid idea only idiots believe in.

I already explained and you agreed how governments find a way to prop up revenue producing channels. Taxing oil will guarantee our permanent dependance on it, as the government and big oil thwart serious alternative development.

 

[Timshel]

Yet i keep beating your stupid ass all up and down this board, dominating you in a most embarrassing fashion.

No, we (the Jews) are using our mind control to block you from the reality of how much others see you as a fool so you will continue to act the clown.