35dd6c83
2367c171
XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: comandante.banana@yahoo.com
On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, The Green Troll wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 12:44 pm, Bob Myers wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise
TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > It's certainly nothing you could write a law around.
>
> Well, you could write an ambiguous, unenforceable law. It wouldn't be
> the first. There's a lot of nonsense in the statute books.
Ambiguous laws make for more suits and litigation. That's how the
lawyers become so important.
Take, for example, the "3 feet law," referring to the clearance cars
must give to bicycles. That's a joke, a cruel joke.
>
> > > So try again - if you're going to proposed somehow banning
regulating/whatever "SUVs," you damned well had better be able to describe
just what you're talking about. So what IS it? Are you going to define the
category based on gross vehicle weight,
size, displacement, gas mileage - WHAT? And more importantly, WHY (for each
delineation).
The same way they regulate many world cars out of the market, we could
make life very difficult for SUVs based on restrictions and
regulations. To begin with, they are not a car, so they require
special license to operate.
>
> > > Bob M.
>
> > Just because:
>
> > 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
>
> So can trucks: pickups, dump trucks, moving vans, transit mixers, etc.
> So can buses.
True, but the more we have the worse it is, right? We don't many dump
trucks parked by 5 star hotels.
>
> > 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
>
> That depends on what fuel they use, how far they are driven, and under
> what conditions they are driven. When filled to capacity, they can be
> more efficient than passenger cars or motorcycles. Some people use
> them to carry cargo, such as furniture or sports equipment.
Same fuel could be used for smaller cars. A minivan is much better in
aerodynamics and crash safety (particularly for others). A rack on a
small car often makes up for size inside a Hummer, perhaps more.
>
> Regulate vehicle dimensions only to insure safety. To discourage
> emission of greenhouse gases, tax the fuel in the amount of the damage
> its consumption causes. Then use the tax revenue to alleviate the
> damage, by regrowing tropical forests as heat sinks.
It makes sense. I go for it.
>
> > I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
>
> NASA and the Bush family want to colonize Mars, so they have a place
> to live after they make Earth uninhabitable. They can charge lots of
> money for transportation, land, and oxygen. Climate change will be
> profitable for some people, and they know it. Anyone who doesn't pay
> will be stuck in the ruins they left behind. For a taste of the
> future, visit the South Bronx in August.
Let those responsible escape to Mars. That enough of a Hell anyway. It
take dinero, mucho dinero though. Hey, it's all about money. Predatory
capitalism thrives on disaster.
>
> > 'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
> > to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
> > Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
> > sleeping humans.”
>
> Wouldn't New York City be cooler in the summer because of all the
> seawater covering it? Wouldn't most of Bahrain also be under water?
> You'd need a coffer dam to dig a ditch.
Maybe they'll relocate it 100 miles inland and make enough money doing
so.
>
> > I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
> > not an acceptable way to do it.
>
> Gibbons can climb higher.
True, but they must come to the ground once in a while. They have to
realize what's going on at the bottom of the food chain and realize
how their predation endangers all.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
