Yes, he does seem to be rather religious about his interpretations... Not sure he'd use the crucifix as his guiding symbol. A burning oil well, or a petrochemical plant gas flare instead perhaps?

Heh heh. I'll let this stand on its own.

Good practice against the likes of Lindzen.

Really? Show us. The article still sits there at the head of the thread. Any of you can choose one of his arguments and refute it.

We're waiting.

However, there is likely no cure for those determined to sit it out on the tracks to test, just for sure, whether the emergency brakes can stop the freight train to halt just in front of them. A little like good ole King Canute...

Just as there is likely no cure for those determined to rush right in, wasting trillions of dollars, just in case, to make no difference at all. A little like lemmings following the leader...

Lookee, lookee, I can say the same silly things that other people do. No argument or reason whatsoever, just a rehash of some silly mantra. Think that helps a position, or hurts it?

There's been a few glimmers of a glow. I'm certainly hopeful for ITER, but we need an awful lot more a long time before that will be ready. A new generation of nuclear power stations are needed that have decommissioning designed in and costed from the outset. And they are needed quickly.

Don't ask DA about them--he's too worried about the waste.

Meanwhile, an awful lot can be done quickly and cheaply to make more efficient use of the fossil fuels that we already use, if only to buy time to do something better. We will likely save money from being more efficient!

That's funny. Misfit's article quotes one estimate of 232 billion by 2030 alone. Boy oh boy, that sure doesn't seem cheap either. Maybe, just maybe, if they're just more efficient, they'll save more than the 232 billion. Heh.

Those spreading ripples of information about the reality of Global Warming need to be larger and spread further...

Just like the spreading of the reality of ineffective and wasteful responses that aren't solutions.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yes, I can read just fine...I get it, you just don't care...well why not just say so in the first place.

Because this is wrong. I do care. I do want to solve the problem.

However, I do not want to waste money on it. I do not want to pay for ineffective responses that are not solutions. I do not want to embark on idiocy that doesn't reduce total emissions. You go right ahead, but don't ask me to buy into it and pay for it.

It's ok though while you bow down to worship your coveted dollar and define your existence on economic philosophy alone, those of us who do care will just have to pick up your slack by taking personal action.

You obviously can't read. I don't worship money, I do just as you do--I make personal decisions for myself the way I wish to. Just as you do. I take personal action, not out of some overwhelming concern for the crisis-du-jour, but because it makes good economic sense. You see, you don't need even one person to care about global warming if the decisions you want them to make, make good economic sense.

If that were true, you wouldn't need gov't intervention, people would do it themselves. If there were no costs, China, India, Russia and Mexico wouldn't have threated to opt out without exemptions.

You keep patting yourself on the back, and keep wringing your hands so that everyone can see how much you care. Let all who come before us see how much you care. Yay, you! But no one even has to care if the solutions make sense, regardless of what you feel about them.

It's sad to see someone just resign themselves to doing nothing and then attempt to marginalize the efforts of people who are actually taking action starting with themselves.

That's an interesting characterization. DA you do whatever you want. Care a lot. Pat yourself on the back for caring a lot. Make sure everyone knows you care. Pat yourself on the back again. Cut your footprint because you care. Go nuts.

But just caring won't save you. Keep in mind, that if everyone did as I did with the compact fluorescents with all aspects of their lives (because it made economic sense) we wouldn't be having this discussion. They would do it all automatically because it made sense. They may not care or feel as much as you would like them to, but so what?

Action which may or may not be in their favor economically is to everyones benefit in making the world a better place. I am curious as to what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside?

No rational person does that. You don't do it, no one does. Frankly, I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics. Care to elaborate how that would be done?

I truly pity what appears to be your lack of social compassion voiced in your continued posts.

Pfffft. I truly pity what appears to be your lack of ability to address simple economic and philosophical issues or glaring logical flaws in your continued posts.

OK, that's a lie, I don't really pity you. I don't care, I was just illustrating how silly these types of comments are.

While I may not have all the answers and I may not know all the options, I do know that doing something is better then doing nothing in the case of global warming.

Except that nothing proposed in this thread is any different than doing nothing, nothing here is "doing something" at all. Emissions aren't being cut.

As I once said to another person with a similar take on it...apathy kills.

Heh. Then you had better find real and effective solutions that actually cut emissions and damn fast. Because everything so far amounts to nothing, in other words, apathy. But at least you get to feel like you fought the good fight.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I have been watching this thread for quite a while now, and have finally decided ( for better or worse ) to actually post something.

I see Rush on one side of things, and I see a whole lot of people on the other side.

Well, here's how I see it.

There are a whole lot of people attempting to make demands on what kind of car ( zero emissions ) we should drive, what we have to do to stop Global Warming ( IF it could be stopped ) and on and on and on.

Ya know what? I do what I can afford to do. I can't afford to go and buy a hybrid car, so I drive one that gets 30MPG. I use LED light bulbs in my living room and bedroom, and a flourescent in my kitchen.

Yes, I still use my computer, obviously. Maybe that negates the other things that I do, but I figure " no gain " is better than " net gain " any day.

This argument seems to boil down to economics. The companies can't make a zero emissions car that someone like me can afford to buy, so I can't buy any of the ones that are available.

It's pretty simple. If people can't afford to do it, then they aren't going to. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever how " informed " or " ignorant " they are, if they simply are not economically able to buy the things that are going to be such a big help.

Nuclear power is a good idea, except for the NIMBY ( Not In My Back Yard ) Syndrome. Lots of people think nuclear power is a great idea, they just don't want the plants anywhere near where they live.

The way I see it, there are a whole lot of people in the world trying to make others feel bad for not doing things in a way they simply can't afford to do.

Go tell the guy in Burmina Faso ( ? ) that he can't buy his first car unless it's a zero emissions or a hybrid. He's likely to tell you to get lost ( remaining kid friendly of course ) just like I would. I am going to buy whatever I can afford that is reliable and will get me where I need to go.

I work at a sugar processing plant. We have put millions of dollars ( that they company really didn't have ) into a new scrubber system for our smokestack. We use coal to fire our boilers, which are essential to our operation. Are you now going to tell our comapny that we not only have to spend the millions on the scrubber, but now we have to spend millions MORE on a system that will keep our plant running without burning coal?? I hate to tell you, but that would put us out of business in a big hurry. How economically sound is that particular idea? Especially when you consider the fact that our plant is one of only TWO places in our town that employs a significant number of people. The nearest area that employs the number of people that the two places in our town does is almost 40 miles away. How is closing OUR plant because of economically unreasonable demands to " clean up the environment " going to help reduce emissions, when all of those people that work where I do will have to DRIVE longer distances to get to work? More driving means more gas usage means more emissions from those big polluting vehicles. Oh yeah, and don't forget, the people who now have to drive so much further to get to their place of employment are now going to be FAR less likely to be able to afford a brand new zero emissions or hybrid car.

It's all economics. Those of you who can afford to buy a hybrid, be my guest. Those of you who don't mind being a little cold in the winter, go ahead and keep your thermostat low and grab a couple of blankets.

Me, I'm going to do what I can afford to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If it means that I drive a Saturn that uses more gas than a hybrid, or pollutes more than a zero emissions vehicle, so be it. You all are just going to have to get over it. Unless, of course, you have a few thousand dollars to spare for me so I can get all the things that you like to tell me that I need.

Well now that you have stopped lurking to join the discussion would you like to weigh in on how to effect change on the scale that scientist believe needs to happen?

While from an economic standpoint I can certainly see why it could potentially be devastating to a town to loose a major part of their economy, it still doesn't solve the problem. While I agree with you that on a personal level it is important that we do what we can and I commend you for it, I see in too many instances where people are ducking the self responsibility to take that personal action, which alone has the potential to make a major dent, and drive the economy by way of demand to spend the necessary money or create new industry to replace the old. Look to the midwest Iowa and Minnesota specifically though I would imagine that it's happening outside of that area on a large scale as well.

Recently due to laws passed, fuel economy standards, and popular demand for reduced pollution, lower cost fuels, and energy independence; there has been a plethora of new ethanol plants being built. This intern brings in more jobs not only to build the plants which take several years to bring online but also in the production of their product. So intern you get the benefit of new jobs, a reduction in pollution, increases to the economy by way of the product which they derive ethanol from (corn) which has the direct effect on getting a better price for the farmer by way of demand, who then intern spends that money on many things including the fuel with the ethanol in it. This is a perfect example of demand driving a market which then creates an answer to fill the vacuum created by the demand, which intern lowers emissions. It all starts though with popular demand. I would venture that in Michigan much like many of the other states in the midwest there is an available source of the raw materials needed to produce this sort of industry. Likewise ethanol can be made out of other things including but not limited to sugar, cellulose, and various other grains.

---

Yes, he does seem to be rather religious about his interpretations... Not sure he'd use the crucifix as his guiding symbol. A burning oil well, or a petrochemical plant gas flare instead perhaps?

Heh heh. I'll let this stand on its own.

Good practice against the likes of Lindzen.

Really? Show us. The article still sits there at the head of the thread. Any of you can choose one of his arguments and refute it.

We're waiting.

However, there is likely no cure for those determined to sit it out on the tracks to test, just for sure, whether the emergency brakes can stop the freight train to halt just in front of them. A little like good ole King Canute...

Just as there is likely no cure for those determined to rush right in, wasting trillions of dollars, just in case, to make no difference at all. A little like lemmings following the leader...

Lookee, lookee, I can say the same silly things that other people do. No argument or reason whatsoever, just a rehash of some silly mantra. Think that helps a position, or hurts it?

There's been a few glimmers of a glow. I'm certainly hopeful for ITER, but we need an awful lot more a long time before that will be ready. A new generation of nuclear power stations are needed that have decommissioning designed in and costed from the outset. And they are needed quickly.

Don't ask DA about them--he's too worried about the waste.

Meanwhile, an awful lot can be done quickly and cheaply to make more efficient use of the fossil fuels that we already use, if only to buy time to do something better. We will likely save money from being more efficient!

That's funny. Misfit's article quotes one estimate of 232 billion by 2030 alone. Boy oh boy, that sure doesn't seem cheap either. Maybe, just maybe, if they're just more efficient, they'll save more than the 232 billion. Heh.

Those spreading ripples of information about the reality of Global Warming need to be larger and spread further...

Just like the spreading of the reality of ineffective and wasteful responses that aren't solutions.

Rush you misrepresent me and now you're just plain putting words in my mouth and ideas in other peoples heads about what I actually did say. I never even entered the nuclear argument with you and never voiced any opinion either way regarding it...please point your finger at someone else and get your facts straight.

On the contrary I will weigh in on the costs that were mentioned in Misfits article... $230 billion in 23 years...well that doesn't seem to bad considering that we have thrown away more on the war in Iraq in a matter of a little less then 4 years while meanwhile running up a record deficit that could easily have been used to pay for that an more. Hey didn't mean to but it perspective thus negating your argument regarding cost. Oh and by the way with a little math that works out to US $32.00 per year per person in the US...if someone told me they could fix global warming and it would only cost me $32.00 per year over the next 23 years I'd sign up and pay it out of my own pocket. It's hard to go out to a movie for less then $32.00 and it equates to roughly 8 cups of Starbucks coffee...so I don't understand what's expensive about it...oh and not to mention that the population is growing by 20% per decade so it's going to be more like $20.00 per person per year over the next 23 years so where's the hang-up?

---

Yes, I can read just fine...I get it, you just don't care...well why not just say so in the first place.

Because this is wrong. I do care. I do want to solve the problem.

However, I do not want to waste money on it. I do not want to pay for ineffective responses that are not solutions. I do not want to embark on idiocy that doesn't reduce total emissions. You go right ahead, but don't ask me to buy into it and pay for it.

It's ok though while you bow down to worship your coveted dollar and define your existence on economic philosophy alone, those of us who do care will just have to pick up your slack by taking personal action.

You obviously can't read. I don't worship money, I do just as you do--I make personal decisions for myself the way I wish to. Just as you do. I take personal action, not out of some overwhelming concern for the crisis-du-jour, but because it makes good economic sense. You see, you don't need even one person to care about global warming if the decisions you want them to make, make good economic sense.

If that were true, you wouldn't need gov't intervention, people would do it themselves. If there were no costs, China, India, Russia and Mexico wouldn't have threated to opt out without exemptions.

You keep patting yourself on the back, and keep wringing your hands so that everyone can see how much you care. Let all who come before us see how much you care. Yay, you! But no one even has to care if the solutions make sense, regardless of what you feel about them.

It's sad to see someone just resign themselves to doing nothing and then attempt to marginalize the efforts of people who are actually taking action starting with themselves.

That's an interesting characterization. DA you do whatever you want. Care a lot. Pat yourself on the back for caring a lot. Make sure everyone knows you care. Pat yourself on the back again. Cut your footprint because you care. Go nuts.

But just caring won't save you. Keep in mind, that if everyone did as I did with the compact fluorescents with all aspects of their lives (because it made economic sense) we wouldn't be having this discussion. They would do it all automatically because it made sense. They may not care or feel as much as you would like them to, but so what?

Action which may or may not be in their favor economically is to everyones benefit in making the world a better place. I am curious as to what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside?

No rational person does that. You don't do it, no one does. Frankly, I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics. Care to elaborate how that would be done?

I truly pity what appears to be your lack of social compassion voiced in your continued posts.

Pfffft. I truly pity what appears to be your lack of ability to address simple economic and philosophical issues or glaring logical flaws in your continued posts.

OK, that's a lie, I don't really pity you. I don't care, I was just illustrating how silly these types of comments are.

While I may not have all the answers and I may not know all the options, I do know that doing something is better then doing nothing in the case of global warming.

Except that nothing proposed in this thread is any different than doing nothing, nothing here is "doing something" at all. Emissions aren't being cut.

As I once said to another person with a similar take on it...apathy kills.

Heh. Then you had better find real and effective solutions that actually cut emissions and damn fast. Because everything so far amounts to nothing, in other words, apathy. But at least you get to feel like you fought the good fight.

The simple fact is you don't do what I do, and you aren't like me. You have proven that time and time again with your posts so please don't try to lump yourself together with me in a generalization that holds water as well as a sieve; because I'm not you, and you are no where even remotely close to being like me.

---

While from an economic standpoint I can certainly see why it could potentially be devastating to a town to loose a major part of their economy, it still doesn't solve the problem. While I agree with you that on a personal level it is important that we do what we can and I commend you for it, I see in too many instances where people are ducking the self responsibility to take that personal action, which alone has the potential to make a major dent, and drive the economy by way of demand to spend the necessary money or create new industry to replace the old.

Which serves to illustrate my point. While you may think they are "ducking the self responsibility" in reality, they are doing just as you are, making the decisions that they feel are best for themselves--you just don't agree with their choices.

An another level, you can also see why KM's point rings home. If at every turn, he could make decisions that are economically sound for himself, global warming wouldn't be a problem. If he could buy zero-emissions car because it was best for him, he would, et cetera.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush you misrepresent me and now you're just plain putting words in my mouth and ideas in other peoples heads about what I actually did say. I never even entered the nuclear argument with you and never voiced any opinion either way regarding it...please point your finger at someone else and get your facts straight.

I said: What do you mean? Presently? Next generation breeder reactors with fuel recycling.

You said: Sounds good, but there is a security problem (just again shortly ago in Sweden) and where do you plan to deposit all the radioactive waste? It's sad, though - nuclear energy could be "the solution" elsewise, don't know if the problems are solveable.

My facts are straight. My apologies for any confusion.

On the contrary I will weigh in on the costs that were mentioned in Misfits article... $230 billion in 23 years...well that doesn't seem to bad considering that we have thrown away more on the war in Iraq in a matter of a little less then 4 years while meanwhile running up a record deficit that could easily have been used to pay for that an more. Hey didn't mean to but it perspective thus negating your argument regarding cost.

Which again illustrates my point. There isn't 232 billion (on the low end) just sitting around somewhere. But because of the system you support, sometimes you get money for war in Iraq, sometimes you get some for your pet project, in this case global warming. Regardless, because there are no principles involved, every dime is a fight. You might get it, you might not.

Oh and by the way with a little math that works out to US $32.00 per year per person in the US...if someone told me they could fix global warming and it would only cost me $32.00 per year over the next 23 years I'd sign up and pay it out of my own pocket. It's hard to go out to a movie for less then $32.00 and it equates to roughly 8 cups of Starbucks coffee...so I don't understand what's expensive about it...oh and not to mention that the population is growing by 20% per decade so it's going to be more like $20.00 per person per year over the next 23 years so where's the hang-up?

One, it's probably a low estimate, designed to shore up support.

Two, did it ever cross your mind that 40% more people (using your numbers) will cause significantly more emissions? To elaborate, that means an average of 40% more emissions over 23 years and continued increases beyond that. Which means, especially as population continues to increase, that total emissions are never cut. Which means that your death scenario comes to pass even if we spend the 232 billion. Which means that the 232 billion is wasted. That isn't effective either.

Three, this is always the way costs are apportioned, as if they're cheap, but the total crushes people. If people kept 95% percent of the money they earned, you'd be right, it's no big deal. Except that the total tax burden takes more than half of what people earn. It's the $32.00 per year for the global warming crowd, mixed with the $64.00 for the nuclear weapons, mixed with the $24.00 for corporate welfare, added in with the $12.00 for education, and the $125 for the Dept. of Defense, and the $78.00 for the war in Iraq, and the $55.00 for Social Security, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

[quote]I have been watching this thread for quite a while now, and have finally decided ( for better or worse ) to actually post something.

I see Rush on one side of things, and I see a whole lot of people on the other side.

Well, here's how I see it.

There are a whole lot of people attempting to make demands on what kind of car ( zero emissions ) we should drive, what we have to do to stop Global Warming ( IF it could be stopped ) and on and on and on.

Ya know what? I do what I can afford to do. I can't afford to go and buy a hybrid car, so I drive one that gets 30MPG. I use LED light bulbs in my living room and bedroom, and a flourescent in my kitchen.

Yes, I still use my computer, obviously. Maybe that negates the other things that I do, but I figure " no gain " is better than " net gain " any day.

This argument seems to boil down to economics. The companies can't make a zero emissions car that someone like me can afford to buy, so I can't buy any of the ones that are available.

It's pretty simple. If people can't afford to do it, then they aren't going to. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever how " informed " or " ignorant " they are, if they simply are not economically able to buy the things that are going to be such a big help.

Nuclear power is a good idea, except for the NIMBY ( Not In My Back Yard ) Syndrome. Lots of people think nuclear power is a great idea, they just don't want the plants anywhere near where they live.

The way I see it, there are a whole lot of people in the world trying to make others feel bad for not doing things in a way they simply can't afford to do.

Go tell the guy in Burmina Faso ( ? ) that he can't buy his first car unless it's a zero emissions or a hybrid. He's likely to tell you to get lost ( remaining kid friendly of course ) just like I would. I am going to buy whatever I can afford that is reliable and will get me where I need to go.

I work at a sugar processing plant. We have put millions of dollars ( that they company really didn't have ) into a new scrubber system for our smokestack. We use coal to fire our boilers, which are essential to our operation. Are you now going to tell our comapny that we not only have to spend the millions on the scrubber, but now we have to spend millions MORE on a system that will keep our plant running without burning coal?? I hate to tell you, but that would put us out of business in a big hurry. How economically sound is that particular idea? Especially when you consider the fact that our plant is one of only TWO places in our town that employs a significant number of people. The nearest area that employs the number of people that the two places in our town does is almost 40 miles away. How is closing OUR plant because of economically unreasonable demands to " clean up the environment " going to help reduce emissions, when all of those people that work where I do will have to DRIVE longer distances to get to work? More driving means more gas usage means more emissions from those big polluting vehicles. Oh yeah, and don't forget, the people who now have to drive so much further to get to their place of employment are now going to be FAR less likely to be able to afford a brand new zero emissions or hybrid car.

It's all economics. Those of you who can afford to buy a hybrid, be my guest. Those of you who don't mind being a little cold in the winter, go ahead and keep your thermostat low and grab a couple of blankets.

Me, I'm going to do what I can afford to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If it means that I drive a Saturn that uses more gas than a hybrid, or pollutes more than a zero emissions vehicle, so be it. You all are just going to have to get over it. Unless, of course, you have a few thousand dollars to spare for me so I can get all the things that you like to tell me that I need.

Well now that you have stopped lurking to join the discussion would you like to weigh in on how to effect change on the scale that scientist believe needs to happen?

If I had any really good ideas on that subject, I would probably be getting paid a whole lot more than I am now...lol

While from an economic standpoint I can certainly see why it could potentially be devastating to a town to loose a major part of their economy, it still doesn't solve the problem.

You are right. It doesn't solve the problem. What it would do, in the area I live in, is contribute even more to the problem itself. Like I said, a longer drive to get to work = more fuel consumption = more emissions. Placing economically unreasonable demands on a small comapny like ours is simply not going to be effective in lowering the net emissions.

While I agree with you that on a personal level it is important that we do what we can and I commend you for it, I see in too many instances where people are ducking the self responsibility to take that personal action, which alone has the potential to make a major dent, and drive the economy by way of demand to spend the necessary money or create new industry to replace the old.

I really can't make mmuch of a comment on that. I drive a relatively gas efficient vehicle, and use flourescent and LED light bulbs in my apartment. Then again, I still use my computer....

Recently due to laws passed, fuel economy standards, and popular demand for reduced pollution, lower cost fuels, and energy independence; there has been a plethora of new ethanol plants being built.

Yep. As a matter of fact, our company is taking one of the plants it has shut down and turning it into an Ethanol plant. One question though. You do realize that vehicles that use Ethanol are even less fuel efficient ( on average ) than ones that use plain ole gasoline?

This intern brings in more jobs not only to build the plants which take several years to bring online but also in the production of their product. So intern you get the benefit of new jobs, a reduction in pollution, increases to the economy by way of the product which they derive ethanol from (corn) which has the direct effect on getting a better price for the farmer by way of demand, who then intern spends that money on many things including the fuel with the ethanol in it. This is a perfect example of demand driving a market which then creates an answer to fill the vacuum created by the demand, which intern lowers emissions. It all starts though with popular demand. I would venture that in Michigan much like many of the other states in the midwest there is an available source of the raw materials needed to produce this sort of industry. Likewise ethanol can be made out of other things including but not limited to sugar, cellulose, and various other grains.

There are a lot of " inturns " there. But again, it's all going to boil down to the economics. If I cannot afford a vehicle that runs on E-85 Ethanol, then I am not going to buy one. It's very simple. As I said, E-85 vehicles don't ( on average ) get the same fuel economy as regular vehicles ( and yes, I have looked it up, don't ask me for the link because I can't remember where it was ). Therefore, even if I could buy an E-85 vehicle, I probably wouldn't because of the increased cost for the fuel to run it. Also keep in mind that E-85 is more expensive than gas ( at least around here it is ).

In short. If you want everyone to take action and start doing things that are better for the environment and cut down on emissions, then you ( meaning the powers that be ) had better come up with something that is economically viable to all.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

An another level, you can also see why KM's point rings home. If at every turn, he could make decisions that are economically sound for himself,

Ummm....Rush.....

I already do make economically sound decisions for myself...lol

That's why I don't own a hybrid or zero emissions car.

* I could've sworn I said that....lol *

_______________________________________

Just kidding, man. :-) Couldn't resist....

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Action which may or may not be in their favor economically is to everyones benefit in making the world a better place. I am curious as to what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside?

No rational person does that. You don't do it, no one does. Frankly, I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics. Care to elaborate how that would be done?

>snip<
The simple fact is you don't do what I do, and you aren't like me. You have proven that time and time again with your posts so please don't try to lump yourself together with me in a generalization that holds water as well as a sieve; because I'm not you, and you are no where even remotely close to being like me.

How evasive. Like it not, we are very very similar and the generalization I used is as tight as a drum. The generalization is very very simple: You (and I) do what everyone else does when we make decisions. We weigh the costs vs. the benefits in a very simple analysis. In fact, it's called a "cost/benefits analysis." We decide what the costs are to us, versus what the benefits are to us, and we decide according to what is best for us.

In other words, you make your decisions based on economics. However, you did ask "what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside," and my response remains the same: I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics.

If you think it can be done, please elaborate.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

While from an economic standpoint I can certainly see why it could potentially be devastating to a town to loose a major part of their economy, it still doesn't solve the problem. While I agree with you that on a personal level it is important that we do what we can and I commend you for it, I see in too many instances where people are ducking the self responsibility to take that personal action, which alone has the potential to make a major dent, and drive the economy by way of demand to spend the necessary money or create new industry to replace the old.

Which serves to illustrate my point. While you may think they are "ducking the self responsibility" in reality, they are doing just as you are, making the decisions that they feel are best for themselves--you just don't agree with their choices.

An another level, you can also see why KM's point rings home. If at every turn, he could make decisions that are economically sound for himself, global warming wouldn't be a problem. If he could buy zero-emissions car because it was best for him, he would, et cetera.

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

---

Rush you misrepresent me and now you're just plain putting words in my mouth and ideas in other peoples heads about what I actually did say. I never even entered the nuclear argument with you and never voiced any opinion either way regarding it...please point your finger at someone else and get your facts straight.

I said: What do you mean? Presently? Next generation breeder reactors with fuel recycling.

You said: Sounds good, but there is a security problem (just again shortly ago in Sweden) and where do you plan to deposit all the radioactive waste? It's sad, though - nuclear energy could be "the solution" elsewise, don't know if the problems are solveable.

My facts are straight. My apologies for any confusion.

Like I said above you need to point your finger at someone else...maybe you would like to recheck you facts because like I did state above I did not say that and you are misquoting me...I'm beginning to wonder who has the reading problem after all. By the way a simple check and I was easily able to find out that it was MAC not DA that stated that...again get your mind numbing facts straight. THATS TWICE NOW!

On the contrary I will weigh in on the costs that were mentioned in Misfits article... $230 billion in 23 years...well that doesn't seem to bad considering that we have thrown away more on the war in Iraq in a matter of a little less then 4 years while meanwhile running up a record deficit that could easily have been used to pay for that an more. Hey didn't mean to but it perspective thus negating your argument regarding cost.

Which again illustrates my point. There isn't 232 billion (on the low end) just sitting around somewhere. But because of the system you support, sometimes you get money for war in Iraq, sometimes you get some for your pet project, in this case global warming. Regardless, because there are no principles involved, every dime is a fight. You might get it, you might not.

That's only because this current administration has mismanaged this country from the start. We went into GW's tenure with a record surplus and only 6 years later Rush is bellyaching about how the money can't be found because we now have a record deficit. I got news for you Rush the money can be found...we just have to cut the fat starting with the current administration that we only have to suffer for another two years.

Oh and by the way with a little math that works out to US $32.00 per year per person in the US...if someone told me they could fix global warming and it would only cost me $32.00 per year over the next 23 years I'd sign up and pay it out of my own pocket. It's hard to go out to a movie for less then $32.00 and it equates to roughly 8 cups of Starbucks coffee...so I don't understand what's expensive about it...oh and not to mention that the population is growing by 20% per decade so it's going to be more like $20.00 per person per year over the next 23 years so where's the hang-up?

One, it's probably a low estimate, designed to shore up support.

It may be...even if it were 2-3 times that it would only equate to $40-$60 per person in america per year...you got more then that in your tax break...which for most people amounted to a few hundred dollars and didn't do a darn thing to boost the economy.

Two, did it ever cross your mind that 40% more people (using your numbers) will cause significantly more emissions? To elaborate, that means an average of 40% more emissions over 23 years and continued increases beyond that. Which means, especially as population continues to increase, that total emissions are never cut. Which means that your death scenario comes to pass even if we spend the 232 billion. Which means that the 232 billion is wasted. That isn't effective either.

Ok this is where the Rush express left the tracks taking a wrong turn and heading to Texas. Yes it did cross my mind. A 20% increase in population would have almost certainly been built into their estimates as they are talking about 23 years time. As far as the ever increasing emissions by getting a start now we are farther ahead in 10 years and still farther ahead in 20 years time...implementation of the the corrective technology once started and managed properly will have most cars which use gas off the road in 20 years...considering that many of the vehicles today are less then 10 years old. Managed properly this should not even be a factor...as more people in 23 years or even 10 years means more people to purchase for instance zero emissions vehicles. Seriously this is not Cuba where the average car on the street was built in the 60's. Look at the SUV it didn't become popular because it was more economically suitable for people on a budget...it became popular because it became the en vogue hot ticket item that everyone had to have to keep up with their neighbor.

Three, this is always the way costs are apportioned, as if they're cheap, but the total crushes people. If people kept 95% percent of the money they earned, you'd be right, it's no big deal. Except that the total tax burden takes more than half of what people earn. It's the $32.00 per year for the global warming crowd, mixed with the $64.00 for the nuclear weapons, mixed with the $24.00 for corporate welfare, added in with the $12.00 for education, and the $125 for the Dept. of Defense, and the $78.00 for the war in Iraq, and the $55.00 for Social Security, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Rush...what tax bracket are you in where you have a tax liability of 50%. At this point, hearing that, I'm beginning to wonder if you're just blowing smoke with your whole economic shtick and how you do what's best for your wallet, woe is me, planet be damned. Really I personally make a very slightly higher then average salary for the area that I live in for a single person (good qualifications to go back to an earlier point) and I don't have a tax liability of 50%. Who are you really trying to kid at this point...or are you just grossly exaggerating on purpose, the average tax liability, so that it renders your argument somewhat useful?

---

[quote]I have been watching this thread for quite a while now, and have finally decided ( for better or worse ) to actually post something.

I see Rush on one side of things, and I see a whole lot of people on the other side.

Well, here's how I see it.

There are a whole lot of people attempting to make demands on what kind of car ( zero emissions ) we should drive, what we have to do to stop Global Warming ( IF it could be stopped ) and on and on and on.

Ya know what? I do what I can afford to do. I can't afford to go and buy a hybrid car, so I drive one that gets 30MPG. I use LED light bulbs in my living room and bedroom, and a fluorescent in my kitchen.

Yes, I still use my computer, obviously. Maybe that negates the other things that I do, but I figure " no gain " is better than " net gain " any day.

This argument seems to boil down to economics. The companies can't make a zero emissions car that someone like me can afford to buy, so I can't buy any of the ones that are available.

It's pretty simple. If people can't afford to do it, then they aren't going to. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever how " informed " or " ignorant " they are, if they simply are not economically able to buy the things that are going to be such a big help.

Nuclear power is a good idea, except for the NIMBY ( Not In My Back Yard ) Syndrome. Lots of people think nuclear power is a great idea, they just don't want the plants anywhere near where they live.

The way I see it, there are a whole lot of people in the world trying to make others feel bad for not doing things in a way they simply can't afford to do.

Go tell the guy in Burmina Faso ( ? ) that he can't buy his first car unless it's a zero emissions or a hybrid. He's likely to tell you to get lost ( remaining kid friendly of course ) just like I would. I am going to buy whatever I can afford that is reliable and will get me where I need to go.

I work at a sugar processing plant. We have put millions of dollars ( that they company really didn't have ) into a new scrubber system for our smokestack. We use coal to fire our boilers, which are essential to our operation. Are you now going to tell our comapny that we not only have to spend the millions on the scrubber, but now we have to spend millions MORE on a system that will keep our plant running without burning coal?? I hate to tell you, but that would put us out of business in a big hurry. How economically sound is that particular idea? Especially when you consider the fact that our plant is one of only TWO places in our town that employs a significant number of people. The nearest area that employs the number of people that the two places in our town does is almost 40 miles away. How is closing OUR plant because of economically unreasonable demands to " clean up the environment " going to help reduce emissions, when all of those people that work where I do will have to DRIVE longer distances to get to work? More driving means more gas usage means more emissions from those big polluting vehicles. Oh yeah, and don't forget, the people who now have to drive so much further to get to their place of employment are now going to be FAR less likely to be able to afford a brand new zero emissions or hybrid car.

It's all economics. Those of you who can afford to buy a hybrid, be my guest. Those of you who don't mind being a little cold in the winter, go ahead and keep your thermostat low and grab a couple of blankets.

Me, I'm going to do what I can afford to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If it means that I drive a Saturn that uses more gas than a hybrid, or pollutes more than a zero emissions vehicle, so be it. You all are just going to have to get over it. Unless, of course, you have a few thousand dollars to spare for me so I can get all the things that you like to tell me that I need.

Well now that you have stopped lurking to join the discussion would you like to weigh in on how to effect change on the scale that scientist believe needs to happen?

If I had any really good ideas on that subject, I would probably be getting paid a whole lot more than I am now...lol

While from an economic standpoint I can certainly see why it could potentially be devastating to a town to loose a major part of their economy, it still doesn't solve the problem.

You are right. It doesn't solve the problem. What it would do, in the area I live in, is contribute even more to the problem itself. Like I said, a longer drive to get to work = more fuel consumption = more emissions. Placing economically unreasonable demands on a small comapny like ours is simply not going to be effective in lowering the net emissions.

While I agree with you that on a personal level it is important that we do what we can and I commend you for it, I see in too many instances where people are ducking the self responsibility to take that personal action, which alone has the potential to make a major dent, and drive the economy by way of demand to spend the necessary money or create new industry to replace the old.

I really can't make mmuch of a comment on that. I drive a relatively gas efficient vehicle, and use flourescent and LED light bulbs in my apartment. Then again, I still use my computer....

Recently due to laws passed, fuel economy standards, and popular demand for reduced pollution, lower cost fuels, and energy independence; there has been a plethora of new ethanol plants being built.

Yep. As a matter of fact, our company is taking one of the plants it has shut down and turning it into an Ethanol plant. One question though. You do realize that vehicles that use Ethanol are even less fuel efficient ( on average ) than ones that use plain ole gasoline?

This intern brings in more jobs not only to build the plants which take several years to bring online but also in the production of their product. So intern you get the benefit of new jobs, a reduction in pollution, increases to the economy by way of the product which they derive ethanol from (corn) which has the direct effect on getting a better price for the farmer by way of demand, who then intern spends that money on many things including the fuel with the ethanol in it. This is a perfect example of demand driving a market which then creates an answer to fill the vacuum created by the demand, which intern lowers emissions. It all starts though with popular demand. I would venture that in Michigan much like many of the other states in the midwest there is an available source of the raw materials needed to produce this sort of industry. Likewise ethanol can be made out of other things including but not limited to sugar, cellulose, and various other grains.

There are a lot of " inturns " there. But again, it's all going to boil down to the economics. If I cannot afford a vehicle that runs on E-85 Ethanol, then I am not going to buy one. It's very simple. As I said, E-85 vehicles don't ( on average ) get the same fuel economy as regular vehicles ( and yes, I have looked it up, don't ask me for the link because I can't remember where it was ). Therefore, even if I could buy an E-85 vehicle, I probably wouldn't because of the increased cost for the fuel to run it. Also keep in mind that E-85 is more expensive than gas ( at least around here it is ).

Alright point made but quickly debunked by a quick search of google...I came up with this now I know that most people don't like when it's industry sponsored so I also went to a link further down the page. edmunds.com had the article. Also linked off the article is this livegreengoyellow.com which is of course is a campaign by GM. Of course it makes sense for them to market a product that can run in their vehicles...oh and by the way their vehicles are no more costly to the consumer than any other new car considering that an e85 vehicle changes the fuel mix by way of a sensor sort of like your O2 sensor in a car which regulates your fuel mix to air ratio so that when you go to higher altitudes you don't loose power...something that used to be lacking on old carburetor vehicles before fuel injection...eventually your fuel efficient (Saturn) car will need to be replaced and maybe then you will be replacing it with a new or used e85 compatible vehicle. Likewise the E85 that you are talking about being more expensive then regular fuel is only because of economics due to more demand then production at this point of e85 use...hence the reason that your company is converting one of their plants. It makes economic sense. If you want to see what e85 or better yet full ethanol vehicles are capable of look to Brazil which is nearly energy independent and has very little oil use at all. In Brazil because they have a large number of production plants in place their ethanol is even cheaper then their standard gasoline at the pumps.

In short. If you want everyone to take action and start doing things that are better for the environment and cut down on emissions, then you ( meaning the powers that be ) had better come up with something that is economically viable to all.

I couldn't agree more with you yet at the same time look around it's happening already...there just needs to be more of it and faster.

---

Action which may or may not be in their favor economically is to everyones benefit in making the world a better place. I am curious as to what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside?

No rational person does that. You don't do it, no one does. Frankly, I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics. Care to elaborate how that would be done?

>snip<
The simple fact is you don't do what I do, and you aren't like me. You have proven that time and time again with your posts so please don't try to lump yourself together with me in a generalization that holds water as well as a sieve; because I'm not you, and you are no where even remotely close to being like me.

How evasive. Like it not, we are very very similar and the generalization I used is as tight as a drum. The generalization is very very simple: You (and I) do what everyone else does when we make decisions. We weigh the costs vs. the benefits in a very simple analysis. In fact, it's called a "cost/benefits analysis." We decide what the costs are to us, versus what the benefits are to us, and we decide according to what is best for us.

How evasive? I wasn't aware that I was being evasive. Did you actually ask a question that may cause met to want to evade you? I didn't see a question anywhere in your above post. I was simply making a statement of fact, you and I are not alike els-wise we would not be having this discussion, and I would see no need have to set matters straight, correct you, or counter your as someone put it earlier almost religious interpretations see here. I do believe that you were making a statement not asking a question.

In other words, you make your decisions based on economics. However, you did ask "what it would take to get you to examine your choices with economics aside," and my response remains the same: I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics.

Well I'm still waiting for your rational side to kick in.

If you think it can be done, please elaborate.

Go to the next gamblers anonymous meeting in your area and you will see lots of people who are very rational about what they do, economics aside. Not that you should error and think my actions or my decisions are made as a gamble.

---

There are a lot of " inturns " there. But again, it's all going to boil down to the economics. If I cannot afford a vehicle that runs on E-85 Ethanol, then I am not going to buy one. It's very simple. As I said, E-85 vehicles don't ( on average ) get the same fuel economy as regular vehicles ( and yes, I have looked it up, don't ask me for the link because I can't remember where it was ). Therefore, even if I could buy an E-85 vehicle, I probably wouldn't because of the increased cost for the fuel to run it. Also keep in mind that E-85 is more expensive than gas ( at least around here it is ).

Alright point made but quickly debunked by a quick search of google...I came up with this now I know that most people don't like when it's industry sponsored so I also went to a link further down the page. edmunds.com had the article. Also linked off the article is this livegreengoyellow.com which is of course is a campaign by GM. Of course it makes sense for them to market a product that can run in their vehicles...oh and by the way their vehicles are no more costly to the consumer than any other new car considering that an e85 vehicle changes the fuel mix by way of a sensor sort of like your O2 sensor in a car which regulates your fuel mix to air ratio so that when you go to higher altitudes you don't loose power...something that used to be lacking on old carburetor vehicles before fuel injection...eventually your fuel efficient (Saturn) car will need to be replaced and maybe then you will be replacing it with a new or used e85 compatible vehicle. Likewise the E85 that you are talking about being more expensive then regular fuel is only because of economics due to more demand then production at this point of e85 use...hence the reason that your company is converting one of their plants. It makes economic sense. If you want to see what e85 or better yet full ethanol vehicles are capable of look to Brazil which is nearly energy independent and has very little oil use at all. In Brazil because they have a large number of production plants in place their ethanol is even cheaper then their standard gasoline at the pumps.

[quote]In short. If you want everyone to take action and start doing things that are better for the environment and cut down on emissions, then you ( meaning the powers that be ) had better come up with something that is economically viable to all.

I couldn't agree more with you yet at the same time look around it's happening already...there just needs to be more of it and faster.

Ok. Point taken and I stand corrected on that particular point.

However, once again, you state something ( supply and demand ) that boils down to simple economics. You stated....

Likewise the E85 that you are talking about being more expensive then regular fuel is only because of economics due to more demand then production at this point of e85 use...

How long do you think it will be until there is an Ethanol station on every corner like there are gas stations?? If everyone goes out and gets an E-85 vehicle, then the sheer costs of the fuel to run them would be extremely prohibitive due to a serious lack of E-85 production facilities. Again, that is simply not economically viable at this point. There is no way that enough plants are going to be built in a short period of time to make up for the demand if everyone gets one of those vehicles immediately. In your use of Brazil as an example, have you looked at how long it took for Brazil to get to the point it's at? I would be willing to bet ( without looking it up ) that it took them a few years to get where they are.

Your statement fails to address the availability issue that stands aside from the supply and demand issue.

Everyone ( figuratively speaking ) here in the area where I live could go out and get an E-85 vehicle, but there is simply no supply around here. The plant that we are converting is in Ohio. The nearest E-85 fueling station is almost 200 miles from here. Again, no supply. So even if I wanted to buy an E-85 car or truck, it simply wouldn't make sense at this point to do so.

Now, that being said, if GM came up with a cheap way to convert my current car ( under 500 dollars ) and if E-85 fuel was actually available in my area AND reasonably priced ( 50 cents or less higher than the cost of a gallon of gas ) then I would be happy to convert my car.

For me, and for many, many others in the area I live, it is simply not economically sensible.

There are no quick fixes to the problems that are facing us. As much as people would love to be able to snap their fingers and have the solutions right there in front of them, it simply isn't going to happen that way. The kind of changes you are looking for are going to take time.

Yes quite true on it serves to illustrate your point but that's just one piece of my post and I do go on to show that while those actions may have an immediate negative impact on his area the void can and likely will be filled with something else...so please if you are going to try to take my statement out of context to prove your point on something not directed at you then please do me the favor of posting my entire statement and not just the parts that support you...I have afforded you that simple courtesy all the way through this discussion. I do believe that the further information was counter to your point, even economically speaking.

Sheesh. I didn't take your statement out of context to mislead anyone, I simply didn't post the entire thing because I wasn't replying to all of it. The original post is still there.

But to be clear, your further information doesn't counter my point--which was that everything you want people to do, they would do almost automatically and without thinking if it made economic sense to them. You just wrote a paragraph about the increased use of ethanol.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Like I said above you need to point your finger at someone else...maybe you would like to recheck you facts because like I did state above I did not say that and you are misquoting me...I'm beginning to wonder who has the reading problem after all. By the way a simple check and I was easily able to find out that it was MAC not DA that stated that...again get your mind numbing facts straight. THATS TWICE NOW!]

I mis-attributed the comments. My apologies to you both.

That's only because this current administration has mismanaged this country from the start. We went into GW's tenure with a record surplus and only 6 years later Rush is bellyaching about how the money can't be found because we now have a record deficit. I got news for you Rush the money can be found...we just have to cut the fat starting with the current administration that we only have to suffer for another two years.

Jeebus H. This is more political rhetoric. The system we use, i.e., the gov't, has "mismanaged" this country from the start. That means, Dubya, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and all the way back. They have all done the same things, in the same way. Funding crap by using force against others and overspending.

Furthermore, there is/was not such thing as a "record surplus" in Clinton's Administration. Those "surpluses" were nothing more than budget projections, 10 years out, into the out years. Politicians use this misleading statistic all the time to show their "tax cut," or their "budget cut," or their "spending increase," for their pet project by using OMB or CBO numbers (which for the most part are fake, the accounting "principles" the federal gov't uses would get you or I thrown into jail for criminal fraud) that they simply project 5 or 10 years out. Which is Barbra Streisand because the budget is re-written and re-approved every year.

Those dollars never existed in any real spendable way, any more than the Social Security "trust fund" exists. Try to get people in invest in a private version of that, and you're going to jail for a long time.

This quote is interesting, and suggests you are still missing the point: "I got news for you Rush the money can be found...we just have to cut the fat starting with the current administration that we only have to suffer for another two years."

First, editorializing doesn't help your position and distracts from your position--like him or hate him, Dubya is gov't-as-usual, the status quo. "The fat," as you use it up there, is just other programs and other spending that other people have managed to get through. Spending that was just as important to them as global warming is to you. You see, you consider their spending to be "fat," but they consider your pet global warming projects to be "fat." That's the whole point, since there are no principles behind the spending, everybody fights like hell to get what they want. Most get nothing. But, like I said, sometimes you may get some foodstamps. Overwhelmingly you get things like war in Iraq. But to be sure, under that system, your ideas are nothing more than "fat." Do you understand why then they would fight to cut your fat, in favor of their own, regardless of your depth of conviction?

It may be...even if it were 2-3 times that it would only equate to $40-$60 per person in america per year...you got more then that in your tax break...which for most people amounted to a few hundred dollars and didn't do a darn thing to boost the economy.

Which as I said, is the argument used for every single one of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gov't programs foisted on us every day, including War in Iraq, nuclear weapons, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, et cetera. "Look, it's only x dollars per person, it's cheap!" Except that it all adds up.

Ok this is where the Rush express left the tracks taking a wrong turn and heading to Texas. Yes it did cross my mind. A 20% increase in population would have almost certainly been built into their estimates as they are talking about 23 years time.

I don't know if they were built in or not, and neither do you. I would hope so.

As far as the ever increasing emissions by getting a start now we are farther ahead in 10 years and still farther ahead in 20 years time...implementation of the the corrective technology once started and managed properly will have most cars which use gas off the road in 20 years...considering that many of the vehicles today are less then 10 years old. Managed properly this should not even be a factor...as more people in 23 years or even 10 years means more people to purchase for instance zero emissions vehicles.

This is OK in theory, though I don't know what you mean "implementation of the corrective technology," or "managed properly." If you mean by gov't force, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Seriously this is not Cuba where the average car on the street was built in the 60's. Look at the SUV it didn't become popular because it was more economically suitable for people on a budget...it became popular because it became the en vogue hot ticket item that everyone had to have to keep up with their neighbor.

More of your empty rhetoric, that you know better than all. SUVs became popular because people choose freely that they wanted them. They decided, freely, just like you do, what was best for them. Maybe they wanted the trade off between lots of space (van) and little space (car.) Maybe they felt safer in SUVs because the ride was higher and they could see better. While undoubtedly some people did it to keep up with the neighbor, so what? That is none of your business because if you can understand why you want the freedom to choose as you do, you can understand why they want the same.

Rush...what tax bracket are you in where you have a tax liability of 50%.

Ummmm, what are you talking about? I said "total tax burden" I didn't say "income tax." People pay Accounts Receivable Taxes, Building Permit Taxes, Capital Gains, Cigarette and Sin Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Federal Income, Federal Unemployment, Gasoline Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory tax, Liquor Tax, Local Income Tax, Luxury, Medicare, Property, Real Estate, Social Security, Sales Taxes, School Tax, State Income, State Unemployment, Utility, Vehicle License Registration. And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. The total for most people is more than half of their income. Every single dollar of every single tax, tariff, subsidy (and I didn't even begin listing the tariffs and subsidies), regulation, et cetera is passed directly onto individuals in the form of higher prices for goods and services because these costs are no different than the costs of raw materials.

At this point, hearing that, I'm beginning to wonder if you're just blowing smoke with your whole economic shtick and how you do what's best for your wallet, woe is me, planet be damned.

Then your capability for critical thought is lacking beyond blind adherence to your world view.

Really I personally make a very slightly higher then average salary for the area that I live in for a single person (good qualifications to go back to an earlier point) and I don't have a tax liability of 50%. Who are you really trying to kid at this point...or are you just grossly exaggerating on purpose, the average tax liability, so that it renders your argument somewhat useful?

This is funny. Because since you either didn't read total tax burden, or didn't understand total tax burden, and couldn't possibly fathom that there are myriad ways of taxing people beyond personal income tax rates, you launched into this silly paragraph.

Do you think that such things help your argument, or hurt you argument?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ummm....Rush.....

I already do make economically sound decisions for myself...lol

That's why I don't own a hybrid or zero emissions car.

* I could've sworn I said that....lol *

_______________________________________

Just kidding, man. :-) Couldn't resist....

What, you didn't talk BMW into selling you one of those 7 series sedans? I'm disappointed--we've got a planet to save here.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ummm....Rush.....

I already do make economically sound decisions for myself...lol

That's why I don't own a hybrid or zero emissions car.

* I could've sworn I said that....lol *

_______________________________________

Just kidding, man. :-) Couldn't resist....

What, you didn't talk BMW into selling you one of those 7 series sedans? I'm disappointed--we've got a planet to save here.

I tried man. I tried!

They just weren't willing to sell me one for what I was willing to pay...lmao

Go figure.

How evasive? I wasn't aware that I was being evasive. Did you actually ask a question that may cause met to want to evade you? I didn't see a question anywhere in your above post. I was simply making a statement of fact, you and I are not alike els-wise we would not be having this discussion, and I would see no need have to set matters straight, correct you, or counter your as someone put it earlier almost religious interpretations see here. I do believe that you were making a statement not asking a question.

I asked you if you would care to elaborate on how one would make a non-economic decision. How would a rational person make a decision without weighing the costs vs the benefits?

Well I'm still waiting for your rational side to kick in.

Why do you put this crap in here? This has no place in the discussion.

Go to the next gamblers anonymous meeting in your area and you will see lots of people who are very rational about what they do, economics aside. Not that you should error and think my actions or my decisions are made as a gamble.

Why would Gamblers Anonymous meeting be any different? Those people make/made their decisions based on economics. The decided what the costs were to them, versus what the benefits were to them (given the risk), and they decided according to what they thought was best for them. That doesn't mean they won. It does mean they *may* be irrational, but what I said was that I don't know how any rational person could make any decisions whatsoever without economics.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...