Wow. Boutons asking someone for a coherent argument. Let that one sink in for a minute.
That's like Michael Jackson calling you crazy.
This is why I love Boutons. He's probably my favorite liberal on this board, as a matter of fact. I find the raging, semi-intelligible ball of feminine anger endearing. I hope, however, for the good of whatever neighborhood or mental hospital in which he resides, that they don't let him around other people. That is, if in "real life" he's anything like he is on the internet.
"Leave! Go to Europe,"
What's the matter, dumb DQ?
Can't take take the heat from my anti-dubya, anti-Repug blow-torch?
aggie, you've surpassed yourself in reading incomprehension, it's probably your knee jerking into your face.
Let me draw you a (verbal) picture, or more appropriately a cartoon, you child:
I was referring to the the 12K nuts of boutons wisdom the blind asshole didn't agree with, not the one he did agree with.
There's no point in arguing with you. I actually value your, um, insights. You're the guy who actually types out what I suspect most liberals think, but don't want to say. It gives me a good gauge of how they're, um, thinking.
And, if you're really this torked off all the time, at dubya (whom you're obsessed with), at America, at gubmint, at all things conservative, then leave! It'll be good for you. You'll be happier, less angry, less likely to drop dead of a heart attack after getting mad at something inconsequential.
Leave, I say, young man! Leave and go to the place where they have it all figured out -- Europe! It's much, much better there. You'll be happy.
At this point, all there is left to say is, are you for real? Are you really like this? Or is it just an act?
boutons needs some of that European government funded prozac. I love how the answer to everyone and everything with this guy is an arguement about stupidity rather than an arguement about the initial point. Excellent work and nice deferment slimy salesman Boutons.
My theory is that the character known as "boutons" is actually the alter ego of a smart conservative. This righty just imagines the biggest, most angry, hate-filled, uninformed but absolutely certain about his opinions, -bag version of a liberal and ... voila ... Boutons!
He can't be for real. Can he?
Not to mention when countries over there start falling to Muslim majorities and he's forced to either convert to Islam or get his head chopped off. I'm sure boutons will be begging to come back to America then.
What's the big deal? He was right on both accounts.
It's only a matter of time before parts of western Europe fall to Islam. I can give a variety of reasons for this, but much of it revolves around the lack of a coherent central ethic, a viable system of belief that gives value to a man -- none that matches Islam anyway. In other words, Europe will fall because Islam is more powerful than Christianity there.
They might force boutons to convert, but generally Islamic countries allow subject people to practice their own religion. The subjugated people generally convert eventually because of social or economic pressure.
Yeah ... I'm sure he'll think Europe sucks too. Everything sucks. Nothing's good.
Jews and Christians are allowed to practice, with restrictions. Others must convert or be executed.
Well, well. Looks like the folks in the United Kingdom have a plan for all of it's citizens. I know Obama and the rest of the Liberal dimm-o-craps cant be far behind in wanting us to have our little ration cards.
Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 1:08 AM on 27th May 2008
Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.
The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.
Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.
Petrol
Filling up: Motorists would need a carbon card at the pumps
Anyone who exceeds their en lement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.
MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.
But critics say the idea is costly, bureaucratic, intrusive and unworkable.
The Government says it supports the scheme in principle, but warns it is 'ahead of its time'.
The idea of personal carbon trading is increasingly being promoted by environmentalists. In theory it could be used to cover all purchases - from petrol to food.
For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards - each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.
Every time someone makes a purchase of petrol, energy or airline tickets, they would use up credits. A return flight from London to Rome would, for instance, use up 900kg of CO2 credits, while 10 litres of petrol would use up 23kg.
Enlarge Tim Yeo
MP Tim Yeo MP, says the scheme could be more effective at cutting Britain's greenhouse gas emissions
Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.
'We found that personal carbon trading has real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way,' he said.
'The idea is a radical one. As such it inevitably faces some significant challenges in its development. It is important to meet these challenges.
'What we are asking the Government to do is to seize the reins on this, leading the debate and coordinating research.'
The Government is committed to cutting CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.
The Climate Change Bill going through Parliament aims to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The Government has said it backs the idea in principle, but it is currently too expensive and bureaucratic.
Environment Minister Hilary Benn said: 'It's got potential but, in essence, it's ahead of its time. There are a lot of practical problems to overcome.'
A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report into the scheme found it would cost between £700million and £2billion to set up and up to another £2billion a year to run.
Tory environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth added: 'Although it does have potential we should proceed with care. We don't want to alienate people and we want everyone to be on board.'
But critics say the idea is deeply flawed. The scheme would penalise those living in the countryside who were dependent on their cars, as well as the elderly or housebound who need to heat their homes in the day.
Large families would suffer, as would those working at nights when little public transport is available.
It would need to take into account the size of families, and their ages. There is huge potential for fraud.
Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the cards would be hugely unpopular. 'The Government has shown itself incapable of managing any huge, complex IT system.' he said.
HOW THE SCHEME WOULD WORK
Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.
The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.
Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.
A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.
When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.
When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.
Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.
Back to the original topic... How about Orlando, FL?
How bout Orlando, FL?
Well, Europe has a few things going for it if you are of working age.
If current exchange rates stabilize for the long term, a distinct possibility, that means that in the last few years, relative to the US, salaries have doubled.
Since Europe has already made gas prices artificially high, their economies are already at the point where they can absorb oil price hikes a uva lot better than we can.
If gas is at $10/gallon and then goes up by a dollar/gallon, that price e doesn't have as much impact as gas at $3/gallon going to $4.
Since oil is also priced in dollars, and at the same time that oil is going up for us, the dollar has been declining against the Euro, oil has actually not gotten nearly as expensive for Europeans as it has for us.
Given that European cities have a well-developed mass transit system, and it is possible to live there quite comfortably without a car 99% of the time, oil prices don't have near the effect on standards of living as they do in the US.
If the dollar stays low or falls further, and oil starts to get more expensive, there may come a point where you will see highly-skilled Americans pack it up and start looking for jobs in Europe, where most countries have negative birth rates, and would be rather happy with highly skilled American immigrants.
In the "expensive oil game", bad ol' socialist-green Europe will find itself a couple of steps ahead of the US, much to many US conservatives' chagrin.
I heard on the radio yesterday that some study (forget who/study name) claims we will see oil at $70 to $85 per bbl by sometime next year. This is suppose to be due to more oil coming on-line. Now I am skeptical of this myself as demand continue to rise and the dollar is still dropping, but maybe it will happen? I think we will see gas around $5.00 per gallon next year myself.
Okay, perhaps you are right. I would say, though, that the answer to the problem would be to develop our domestic oil industry (open up ANWAR, cont. shelf) and add to our supply, and let the sheiks and unfriendly nations sell to other nations instead. Why let other countries control what is a vital aspect of our economy?
I wasn't really focusing on oil though -- man-child's complaints about America run much deeper than just our oil and monetary policy. He hates America so much? Then he can leave! He'll be much happier somewhere else, and live a longer healthier life not carrying around all the anger.
How does that explain the Zaroastrian minority in Iran?
They are neither muslim, jewish, or christian.
Yes, Islam in Iran also allows Zoroastrians to practice, since they are monotheistic. That religion also predates Islam. But minority religions don't have what we'd call religious freedom --they typically have to pay a tax, generally cannot vote or hold public office, and are barred from certain occupations. To Islam, though, this is religious freedom -- we're letting them practice their religion, aren't we??
Right on all counts. I actually met an Iranian Zoroastrian in one of my classes. She was a pretty interesting person to talk to.
About Islam and religious freedom, I don't know if that is a function specific to Islam, or just a function of overall religious fundamentalism. If the first amendment were removed and US Christian fundamentalists had power in a manner similar to Iran, you can bet that many of the same restrictions on non-christian sects and even some christian ones would be enacted.
I always find it spooky/creepy/scary when you hear people like Pat Robertson et al. talk about the evils of "secularism" in the West, and then read muslim fundamentalists saying, almost word for word, the exact same thing.
Now that we are waaaaay off topic, in true Spurstalk tradition...
I also wonder what recent exchange rates are doing to the "but the average person in the US is better off than in Europe" gambit.
That whole conservative shpiel was predicated on American incomes being higher than those in Europe. Since exchange rates not only take that away, but actively reverse it, then the "socialist" economic system of Europe will, by the same logic, prove better able to provide decent standards of living than the US.
With exchange rates for the US dollar being what they are, if I went to Europe and got a job, lived cheaply, I could start sending money home to my family here in the US in much the same way that Mexican immigrants do when they come here to earn money.
Wouldn't THAT be ironic?
I say all that, but, as an accountant, I know that the important thing is always the bottom line.
It isn't how much you make, but rather how much you keep. This is what I am sure the knee-jerk conservareaction will be: "them damn Europee-ins will tax you to death, and you won't make nearly as much money as you think you will."
From what I understand about overall tax burdens in Western Europe, when you sum up ALL US taxes, not just Federal, but state and local, the tax burden on income is pretty fairly close to what it is overall in Europe. They are just a lot more upfront about it. The federal governments tax the snot out of you upfront, then distribute the money to the states/provinces and cities, whereas the US federal taxes are paid for here, then you dribbed and drabbed by various levels of state, county, and municipal governments.
I wish I could remember where I read that, but it was probably in one of my economics or finance classes.
Maybe I am wrong about this, but I am fairly sure the levels are pretty similar.
Good observations. Well ... remember that Islam is essentially as much a political system as it is a religion. It is impossible for Islam NOT to control the government and not be compromised. Christianity, on the other hand, while it went through a period where it was tied into the state, it has yet always had some sense of the separation of politics and faith (at least some). And I would argue that a state-run church and compulsory religion actually corrupts the church.
Second, I have found that most Christians in fundamentalist are fine with the separation of church and state. They may sometimes confuse the two ins utions, and a few get into Christian dominionism (which argues that it's the church's role to take over the govt), but most of them basically agree with separation. And while if, say, they were to get in power, we might see some minor changes toward re-ins uting school prayer and such, they would never attempt to run the country like Islam runs Islamic countries, for they know full well that, again, compelled religion corrupts the church.
Cant speak for all of Europe, but the UK has an income
tax and also the VAT. (Value added tax). The VAT is
20 percent at every stage from supplier of raw material,
manufacturing, wholesale and retail. So it can add up.
Many here in the USA want us to do they same with
the VAT.
That statement can be validated provisionally. While most Christian fundamentalists would not be interested in a monopoly on power, the ones who would, namely the Dominionists, indeed would severely curtail the religious freedom of others. I probably would be executed by them as a heretic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote