i dunno how a grown man can be so poor at understanding what a carbon tax is. read slowly. some politicians favor a "carbon" tax. carbon is an element. in carbon dioxide, carbon functions as a "greenouse gas". this means that it may restrict heat from escaping from earth and cause warming. some people are opposed to releasing c02 because they figure it will cause problems. ok, are you with me? now, in order to restrict this carbon from being emitted, there are various proposals. one is that there would be a cap on how much of the stuff that we can release into the atmosphere. folks would be given allocations of how much they are allowed to emit, then they can sell and trade their allocations. this would reward folks who do not emit much, and make it costly for those that did. presumably this would motivate folks to find alternative to the evil carbon. this is called "cap and trade". with me still? good. there is another plan for dealing with carbon emissions called "carbon tax". with some versions of this plan, the government would place a tax on emissions. the tax would be high enough so that the government revenue would replace the income from payroll taxes. again, this would reward industries that are not pollutin gthe atmosphere, while motivating the ones that did. there would be no loss in revenue for the government, and no higher tax burden for the people. instead of taxing folks for earning money like we do now, we would tax folks for emissions. i am a very good writer, and i can rephrase this so it is an even simpler read if necessary. do you favor either of those proposals, based on the general ideas? barack obama favors some sort of cap and trade proposal, would you agree that a plan like that is necessary, given what science is telling us about the environment? keep in mind that the science is ever so true.
Do you seriously imagine that I have no core personal beliefs? :insane: You have paid no attention to me at all for seven years, you are just pulling my chain, or you are completely full of chit. Possibly all three. Now wait a minute, you just got through saying that I can't decide on a position until the two extremes have been established. Now you say it is irelevant. You are speaking with forked tongue, white man. Would you like me to show you about a thousand examples of my original thought on this forum? You got nuthin' to hang this sillyness upon. You make abstract comments, you get abstract answers. I'll tell you what I told your guru. You make a specific question about specific issues with specific examples to cite and I'll give you a specific answer. I may agree. I may disagree. I may tell you I don't know. I may tell you I don't care. I may even tell you that there is not enough data to reach a conclusion. You just can't feign outrage that I don't respond the way you want me too. What I won't do is wait for someone to be Mr. Left Extreme and then wait for someone to play Mr. Right Extreme and then precisely calculate the dead center. It's a ludicrous notion. Never been on a debate team, I can see . . . Speak for yourself if you wish, but that's not how my analytical process works. I would have never have passed my sophomore level courses with an absurd philosophy like that. How did you manage? Do a search for Iraq War, biblical infallibility, George Bush, and about . . . 1,000 other topics. You really want to go there? Make it easy on yourself. Go find one where I wait for the extremes to be stated and then pick dead center. Take your time, I won't hold my breath. Let me remind the peanut gallery that tirk, like master martin, has also steered the discussion away from global warming, which he wisely chooses not to argue, and towards a particularly unwise criticism of how Red55 reasons, which he can't possibly know.
as far as i can remember, you took took the middle of the road wishy-washy educated white person viewpoint on all those issues. it is almost as if you are running for office and you take the position least disagreeable to the most folks. one thing you do that i enjoy is judge a politicians effectiveness by his popularity in the polls. but in your defense, it is socially a smart move to pretend. i dont go around telling pretty girls i dont care about the environments when i am trying to get some. to some extent sometimes even i care about not being perceived as a crazy extremist, even though i am. there are times when it makes sense to temper your views. but we are all friends here, bub, you can say what you think without crafting your views into a ball of boring safeness.
what core personal beliefs were specifically instilled from your parents. you know, were they strict catholics, god-fearing, anti-abortion, flower children live and let live, etc. And were they instrumental in forming your current core of beliefs. you can still choose middle ground between 2 arbitrary points. extremes are relative anyhow. no dont confuse martin for ramah so you just consider both sides and usually determine things are best done in the middle? im just trying to understand it. im sure its just my inability to grasp something so abstract. let's just stick to global warming. who cares what others think. we can veer back and forth trying to solve the riddle of red while also discussing global warming. its imperative in understanding your non-positions sometimes.
You are not a particularly good writer, martin. You can't even capitalize or punctuate, much less be succinct and honest. I've already addressed each of these questions more than once here. I've already answered these general questions with general answers. Here . . . I've listed them for you to prove it. Post 129 Post 133 Post 138 Post 140 Post 176 Post 183 Post 208 There you have it . . . asked and answered already. One can only conclude: 1. You are blindly arguing because you can't help it. 2. You are lying intentionally 3. You have the attention span of a cantelope. Perhaps, all three. Now . . . what are these SPECIFICS that I'm supposed to be evading?
that was too long to read. but i did catch the beginning. cant? or wont? dont be silly we all know i am the best witer here by a wide margin. i cant read the rest. was it a yes or no on carbon tax and cap and trade?
Then post one. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You make grandiose statement that you can't . . . back . . . up. How about biblical infallibility? I took the position that the bible is mostly hebrew mythology. Now, who took a position to the left and to the right of me on that to determine my "moderate" position. Go ahead . . . find the thread. How about the competence of George Bush? I took the position that he is a nice guy but a thoroughly incompetent President on about 250 threads. Wishy Washy viewpoint? How about gun control? There is an issue I'm probably to the right of you on. Put up or shut up!
Let me paraphrase it for you. It demonstrated that I've already answered that question and that you aren't even paying attention here. You won't even read an answer when it is posted twice. You are just blindly arguing because you can't help yourself. :dis:
That would be your G-D given right. Called free will Can't argue that point....although by comparison to the current occupant, he will end up looking like Washington or Jefferson. Sad what neocons and pinkos have done to this once great Republic.
wow. extreme. that may the most obvious fact on the planet. congrats, you are not an extremist religious lunatic. o lord yes. pretty much the stance of the average person of your ethnicity and education. i would be stunned if you thought anything else. gun control is an issue i almost care zero about and dont really think about, like your position on the politics of global warming. and i dunno what you think. but given who you are i suppose you support pragmatic gun control, which allows law abiding citizens to have weapons. yunno, the position of least resistance.
