Same question; never an answer.

[The New Guy]

saunterelle says, ""Is the suffering of millions OK with you as long as the greater good(as you see it) is served?"

Yes, if it prevents more severe suffering in the future."


unbelievable!!! you sir, the great savior of the poor, would sit idle and watch the poor whom you claim to be so concerned about have to pay so much more to drive their cars to their low paying jobs? as is so popular with the lefties, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

if joe blow makes $8.50/hr at McD's (he should go to in and out, they start at $9.50!) and drives an old chevy you think it is okay for him to pay MORE at the pump for the next 10-20 years while some yet undiscovered miracle fuel comes online?

[saunterelle]

saunterelle says, ""Is the suffering of millions OK with you as long as the greater good(as you see it) is served?"

Yes, if it prevents more severe suffering in the future."


How is this any different from your justification for our invasion of Iraq?

And the idea of everyone sacrificing a little bit to make America better isn't new. We've done it many time before and will continue to do so in the future. We're at a crossroads: Either we start building the infrastructure and technology for our future or we screw ourselves by relying on a quickly depleting, high-demand natural resource. The answer is clear. We need to move forward.

[jgaffney]

Saunterelle sez...

How is this any different from your justification for our invasion of Iraq?

Well, now, that's a stretch. After six years or rhetoric against Saddam, Bush finally does something about it, and you want to compare that to a shortage of petroleum to save the pelicans?

And the idea of everyone sacrificing a little bit to make America better isn't new. We've done it many time before and will continue to do so in the future.

That's true. There was gas rationing during World War II, but that's because we were shipping everything we had to the war zone. Fighting the Axis powers does not compare with developing alternative energy sources.

We're at a crossroads: Either we start building the infrastructure and technology for our future or we screw ourselves by relying on a quickly depleting, high-demand natural resource. The answer is clear. We need to move forward.

I think the problem here is that, as demonstrated in your answer above, you see it as an either-or situation, while the rest of us don't. There's no telling how long it will take to develop a cheap and marketable energy replacement for petroleum AND BRING IT ON LINE. So, what do we do in the meanwhile?

In your answer, please address the fact that $140 a barrel oil has impacts to our economy far beyond the price of gas. Have you noticed how food prices have been going up? How do you think the food gets to the grocery store? Or, is Safeway in on the scam, too?

[bolverk]

Jun 26, 2008 11:10:59 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

"It's time for the left to remember that not everyone likes giving up their hard-earned cash to publicly fund research in a product that will take some years to get off the ground (don't get me started on publicly funded research either). "

The research will not be publicly funded. It will come from a tax on oil companies' windfall profits. Windfall profits occur due to unforeseen circumstances in a product's market, such as unexpected demand or government regulation. Since the profits were unforeseen, taxing them should not hurt the company.

Of course the transition to new technology will take time and money, but it is necessary, and the sooner we can break our dependence on oil the better. The Republican plan chooses to postpone the problem rather than tackling it head on. Why? Because they are beholden to the oil industry.

Further proof that communism is the neo-socialism of today. You are a lost cause.

If you attempted to tax me at a higher rate because I made even more money then you anticipated, I would go to war.

[bolverk]

Jun 25, 2008 18:40:50 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

"Is the suffering of millions OK with you as long as the greater good(as you see it) is served?"

Yes, if it prevents more severe suffering in the future.

Well, you certainly are not a humanitarian. What kind of car do you drive? How do you heat your house? What type of stove do you cook on? Any answer you give makes you a elitist hypocrite, unless you do not own a car, heat your home or eat.

I still await your answer. If you drive, anything, including a hybrid, you are a hypocrite. If you eat, anything other then fresh vegetables, you are a hypocrite. If you heat your home or use air conditioning at all, you are a hypocrite.