Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/26/05 10:31 PM, TheReveiwer wrote:

At 8/26/05 03:17 PM, -Illustrious- wrote:

At 8/26/05 06:39 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: can you IN A SHORT POST counter the idea of the free hibrids making people want to drive em more then by all means do but if you make it run on dont expect me or anyone else who get's eye strain to read it

I've already countered it several times. If you lack the attention span or reading comprehension, or are to blind to read it, that's your problem, not mine. After all, you're the one trying to prove that it's a good idea. It's your burden to demonstrate why it would make people drive more.

why should I have to point out what common sense already does

it's simple

give someone a free car ((Everyone with a liscense)) give them tax breaks for using it give them enough info to be able to kow it'll save gas

what other conclusion could be drawn from all that?

I don't doubt that. Any dumbass that can see that giving people a free car, or free anything, will result in them using it. That's not the point, nor is it what's being debated.

What is being debated, is how such a plan could possibly be feasible. You have yet to show how the government can afford to give away a hundred million or more free cars without raising taxes or going into large deficit spending.
All you have done is just restate, over and over again, the fact that people will use something if it's given to them for free--which is nothing more than just mindlessly repeating the obvious.

At 8/26/05 06:39 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: can you IN A SHORT POST counter the idea of the free hibrids making people want to drive em more then by all means do but if you make it run on dont expect me or anyone else who get's eye strain to read it

I've already countered it several times. If you lack the attention span or reading comprehension, or are to blind to read it, that's your problem, not mine. After all, you're the one trying to prove that it's a good idea. It's your burden to demonstrate why it would make people drive more.

At 8/26/05 05:34 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: what can I say I hate run on posts

It's not a run on post. Lengthy, perhaps, but just because you can't actually rebut any of the arguments in it doesn't mean it's run on. Besides, if posts that present several points and use proper sentence and paragraphy structure are too complicated for you, or annoy you, perhaps you should not be on a forum where such posts are frequent.

of course the best way to go is due away with money and just give everyone what they need when they need it and people just do the things they like to do ((I do know someone who wants to be a scientist))

and give them free education all forms

but too bad were too much of greedy pigs

An even better way is if we all move to the Big Rock Candy Mountains and everybody is happy and the sun shines all the time and the cars run on rainbow power and we all get taught by the magical words of the Learning Tree and we all gather by the lake at night in one big circle and sing Kumbayah. ^_^

Hello? Welcome to reality. If you had even read my post, you would have already heard me tell you that nothing is free. You can not pay for an item, but it still has a cost. You can do away with currency, but items will still have a cost. Everything in life requires effort to create, and thus it has a cost-if not in monetary terms, in human terms, in environmental terms. Just denying this and covering your ears and going "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" won't change this.

I tell you what though. If you believe so much in this idea--that everything should be free--open up an electronics store, and initiate this "free everything" movement by giving away for free your entire stock.

Come back and tell me how successful that is. Good luck finding a wholesaler that will give these items for free, a landlord that will lease you his store for free, and employees that will work for free.

At 8/26/05 12:22 AM, -SirHumpalot- wrote: That Hurricane sucked and it was boring >:[

Well, duh. It was just a category one. A minimal hurricane. Barely a hurricane.

Watch out though, it's supposed to move out into the Gulf of Mexico and restrengthen, then hit Florida again!

§

That used to be a nice song, until I had to sit through a bunch of middle school Powerpoint presentations of candid "funny" pictures before every summer vacation.

It seemed like they were trying to make us feel like we were all about to die of cancer, instead of not being in school for two months.

At 8/26/05 12:17 AM, mofomojo wrote: Yepp.. Maddox is a great guy.

Maddox should be shot as well.

You don't have to someone blabbering on a webpage to know that people who really care and are really charitable are that way both on and off the camera. After all, honor is defined by what you do when no one is watching.

Bono conveniently cares. Unless there's a camera present, he doesn't give a shit about the homeless or a starving child.

Here you go, Reviewer. Let me respond again, and save you the trouble of hammering out some anal comment about how it is some easy solution.

Sure, giving free cars away is an easy solution. So is giving out free gas. So is going outside and yelling at your car until it runs on water. It's incredibly easy to think of myriad ideas and solutions that sound so easy in the hypothetical sense. Let's just negotiate with OPEC and have them do what we say! Social security needs to be fixed, so let's put a trillion dollars into it and fix it! We need better healthcare, so let's give everybody free health insurance!

They're all easy solutions.

Until you realize that there is no way any of these ideas can ever possibly work. You know why? It's simple.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Sure it's cliche, but it's the truth. Even though you may not pay for something at the point of sale, nor pay for something at the point nof manufacture, or pay for the resources required to produce something, that doesn't mean it's not free. From raw materials at the source to finished product in the consumer's house, even if no money or financial transaction is made, the item is still not free. There are inherent costs on every item.

Let's break it down, and take a look at a car.

You start out with the raw materials--iron ore, petroleum, sand. It costs money to buy and maintain gathering, drilling, and mining equipment; hire and pay miners and drillers and dredgers; buy and maintain and operate and staff places where the materials are refined and purified and filtered, and so on.

Often, these raw materials are processed into other raw materials. This too, costs money.

Then these raw materials must be shaped, drilled, cut, bored, screwed, welded, and penultimately assembled into an automobile. It costs money to buy and maintain a facility to do this in. It costs money to hire, pay and staff workers to assemble the cars. It costs money to buy and maintain robots to assemble the cars. It costs money to test the cars to make sure they work.

For your proposition to have any reasonability, one of the following things would have to happen.

1. The government would have to take control over the entirety of the aforementioned process.

2. The government would spend much, much more than it takes in taxes.

3. The government would have to raise taxes to cover the expenses.

Let's look at scenario #1. The government buys out the mines that produce the oil, the plants that convert oil and other chemicals into rubber and plastics, the factories that make the cars, and so on.
It's not free. The government still has to pay the workers, still has to maintain the mines, plants, and factories, still has to test and produce the product.
And doing all of this to create over 100,000,000 cars is a very expensive task--one that will still require massive amounts of government spending.

2. Let's just say the government goes into massive deficit spending buying hybrids and giving them away. You figure, $20,000 a car, times 100,000,000-- that's 2 fucking trillion dollars! Do you not understand how negative of an effect a $2 trillion dollar deficit in a fiscal year would have on the economy, and the nation in general? C'mon--people complain about the budget having a $200 billion deficit, let alone one that would be ten times that high just on one program!

3. Fine, let's say you raise taxes, then give everyone a car. My question to you, is this:

If people are so upset about gas prices, why aren't they already buying hybrid vehicles? People are still buying SUV's, pickup trucks, and sports cars. No one's forcing them to buy them. They know that those vehicles get nowhere near the gas mileage hybrids do.

If the gas prices were a major problem for people, they would have already bought hybrid vehicles.

Don't get confused. Just because people complain about something, doesn't mean it's burdensome or problematic enough for them to change their habits and behavior to do something different. The soccer mom in the SUV, the guy in the pick up truck, they might complain about how high the gas prices are. However, no one is forcing them to buy gasoline or drive an ineffecient vehicle. They know how expensive gas is, and though they complain, they're still willing to sacrifice and buy more gas and spend more for the benefits of the vehicle they use than to switch to a more effecient vehicle.

but we nede to soleve the problem, <insert obligatory word where you forget that "i" comes before "e" except after "c">, of the gass preices and dump those peps <?> at OPEC..ds4yh$u oh and i like lisa simpson hentai

I can hear it now. So before you have a chance to respond with this, I'll ask, "Whose problem is it, anyway?

As I've already shown, if people had an actual problem with gas prices, they would be switching to hybrid vehicles and stop buying less efficient ones. Why then, would the government go to so much effort, expense, and waste on such an absurd solution as giving everybody a free car and tax breaks to drive it, to solve a problem that people don't have? Why are we trying to create solutions for problems that may not exist?

but evin thow peps may not thenk itsa problim, it still an problum to societey as a hole

Before you can throw this out, let me take the liberty of pre-rebutting it, if you will. Contrary to what you may believe, gas prices aren't necessarily that big a problem.

As I've already pointed out several times, the higher gas prices go, the less people buy gas. Sure, demand for gas is inelastic, which means the change isn't as great in demand as it would be if it was a luxury item or an item with a large amount of substitutes. But higher gas prices not only promote conservation, but innovation and the creation of substitutes as well--more vehicles that use less gas, or even no gas at all.

As a good as hybrid vehicles are, they are still reliant on gasoline for a majority of their power--they just use gas more effieciently. However, people will still be buying gas for them, and the gas supply will still be limited.

Meanwhile, vehicles are being used that operate on much more plentiful, if not renewable, resources. Perhaps you've heard about hydrogen-powered or even vegetable-oil powered cars? The increase in gas prices has given a reason to seek out innovations as these. There's little reason to when it was cheaper.

<cont. in image below>

At 8/25/05 10:00 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: *Sigh* the answer is simple and easy

it may cost the gov money but it's the best solution

if you give peps free hybrids plus tax breaks on using them they'll use them since it doesnt cost them a dime and they'll pay less taxes

THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO MAKE MONEY IN THE FORM OF TAXES, DIPSHIT. The government cannot just go out and take in less taxes and spend a trillion dollars on buying free cars for people! It can't just go *poof* and create 100,000,000+ hybrid vehicles out of nothing! It costs fucking money to build cars! Where do you suppose the government gets this money, if we're not going to pay any more in taxes, or take on trillions of dollars in extra debt and enormous amounts of federal spending?

This isn't "The Price is Right", you know.

lower taxes and more driving would also spur travel which would spur economy

Any spur in the economy would not only be offset, but annihilated by the massive debt caused by such a stupid and rediculous program.

It's called an investment one that we should do but too many conservitive fucktards crap themselves whenever anyone says spend money directly for the people

1. I'm not a "conservitive [sic] fucktard."
2. I don't "crap" myself when the spending of tax money is mentioned. I do however, get upset when people create impossible and completely outrageous solutions for things they feel is a problem.

No, I don't think that's the reason for blue urban areas. I think it's just simply that minorities and the poor, who tend to vote Democratic, are concentrated there. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a Chinatown or Little Italy in Dubuque, Iowa?

That's not, however, to say your theory is incorrect, because it isn't. If you hang around with a bunch of people of the opposite views politically, only the most stubborn can resist not moderating a little. I can relate. When I started posting here a year and a half ago (geez, I need to get a life =P) I was far more conservative than what I am now.

Oh, you're a Michael Savage fan.

That explains it.

At 8/25/05 10:45 AM, HeinousDude wrote: Oh what's the fucking point. I bet one of them will start having terrorists bombing us for not doing business with them.

Yeah, you would think that those nations whose wealth is built on oil would be more kind to their customers instead of having such hostility towards Westerners and Americans.

Or are we like crack addicts? Are we so dependent on oil that we'll let the dealer beat us up, rape us, and pimp us out?

At 8/25/05 07:09 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: Well it is the simpliest solution give them free hibrids and tax breaks for using them and naturally everyone would wind up keeping and using them it's common sense

Yeah, it's a simple solution. Its simplicity doesn't mean it isn't impossible, or stupid, however. Nothing is free. These would have to be payed for by taxes, or our nation would go into large, dangerous amount of debt.

How do you propose paying for all these "free" hybrids?

a consperacy of oil producing nations who apparently hate the US ((a lot of peps do)) so naturally they'll want to screw us so I say we shouldnt rely on them anymore and possibly drive em out of bussiness

If you think OPEC is a problem, you know what the best way to avoid reliance on them is? Cut back on oil use--it's as simple as that. When we aren't so dependent on OPEC oil, OPEC has less power over our lives.

And if we get to the point when we're using less oil that we can provide it all, then OPEC will be irrelevant to the U.S.

A few little germs in your water are not going to kill you. In fact, germs are good for you. You have an immune system that produces anti-bodies to fend off against germs and bacteria. But how will it get stronger iff you try all you can to remain perfectly sterile. Not saying you should stop taking a shower, but don't be taking like 2 showers a day and washing your hands 5 times after taking a piss, esspecially if you didn't TOUCH anything donw there. Unless you are constantly swimming through garbage, you only need a shower when you start smelling like a hobo, and you only need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom if you had somehow pissed or shit on them.

OT, perhaps, but you don't wash your hands after you touch yourself for your own good--after all, it's your body's germs. It's for other people. Building up immunity or not, I don't think I want to shake hands with somebody who didn't wash their hands after using the restroom or whatever.

At 8/24/05 07:40 PM, Pink_Floyd wrote:

At 8/24/05 07:34 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

I don't think that's possible, since you are a mod. Haven't they been deleted?

No.

http://www.newground..FUNKbrs&page=314

You may need to go to page 315. Though Funk has over 10,000 posts, he has 600 or so in the Mod Lounge. http://www.newground..m/bbs/forum.php?id=9

Since you're not allowed to see those, you can only see the posts in the public forums, so that's why only the first 315 pages are visible.

At 8/24/05 07:25 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: I don't think that people here fully realize that I like to use hypocracy and irony to further prove my points.....

What irony and hypocracy?

At 8/24/05 06:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/24/05 05:35 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: If you want pure, fresh water, buy distilled water. Simple as that. There's nothing dissolved in it, because it's been taken out of solution.

Its not very good for you though, I think I remember learning.

That's all part of the plan. People are so hell-bent on getting water "clean", they might reach a point where it's too clean.

MWUAHAHAHAHAHA

At 8/24/05 07:17 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:

At 8/24/05 07:15 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: If I think their view on something is a load of crock, and I if I have reasons for thinking so, then I'm more than justified in correcting them, or telling them, or arguing with them over it.

No, you should accept them. They put up with your close-minded-ness, so you should 'put-up' with their open-ness. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

Tell me, why in Sam Hill should I sacrifice my views and beliefs which I made and rationalized using logic and reasoning and accept as equal those views and beliefs of other people that I find to be incorrect? Nothing is stopping them from explaining their views, or debating, or disproving mine. Why should I refrain from pointing out where people are wrong just because they're too wishy-washy, stupid, or ignorant, to try to point out why I might be wrong, and resign themselves to just "put up" with what I'm saying?

Besides, if what you're saying is the case, then shouldn't you accept my close-mindness? After all, telling me I'm wrong for being close-minded is intolerant.

Handjobs are nothing more than second-party masterbation. They're not sex, and it's nothing to be gloating about.

At 8/24/05 07:09 PM, bratpack34 wrote:

At 8/24/05 07:04 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: Tolerance is overrated. Why should I be tolerant of other peoples views when I have just as good, if not better, reasons for having my own?

tolerances means yo ujust have to put up with their views on whatever subject and what not. its not acceptance dude.

I don't have to put up with anything.

If I think their view on something is a load of crock, and I if I have reasons for thinking so, then I'm more than justified in correcting them, or telling them, or arguing with them over it.

Tolerance is overrated. Why should I be tolerant of other peoples views when I have just as good, if not better, reasons for having my own?

At 8/24/05 05:50 PM, Buckdich wrote: How do I know you all exist? You could all be programmes in a computer simulation or I might be just a fictional person in someone's dream that is coming to an end soon..

You don't know. You can only make assumptions based on what you believe to be true.

But what does this have to do with the topic?

At 8/24/05 05:42 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/24/05 05:39 PM, -Illustrious- wrote:

Why aren't those stickers placed in religious texts housed in school libraries?

Becuase scientists don't kick up enough of a fussto get it to happen. If they did make a fus they Religious books would come with a theory sticker on them.

Precisely. Scientists and intelligent people know that anything should be studied carefully and considered with an open mind.

Cobb County Schools, which I attended, required that the following stickers be placed in books containing evolution material;

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.". I've seen 'em with my own eyes.

They've recently been removed by court order.

Plate Tetonics is also a theory, but we don't go labeling Geology textbooks with stickers like these.

I might also note that religion is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. It should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. Why aren't those stickers placed in religious texts housed in school libraries?

If you want pure, fresh water, buy distilled water. Simple as that. There's nothing dissolved in it, because it's been taken out of solution.

At 8/24/05 05:14 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: Yeah but that would take too long

No it doesn't. People can start saving gas and using more fuel effiecient cars NOW. There's nothing prohibiting them from doing so other than their own stubbornness and stupidity.

and hybrid cars are very expensive

www.honda.com lists a new '06 Honda Civic Hybrid for a little over $20 grand. That's not expensive.

solution no.3 give every person with a license a free hybrid car to encourage less gas consumption

Are you nuts? It's the people that are complaining about the gas prices, so it should be the people that pay for them. Besides, as I've already shown, they're not that expensive--you can get them for cheaper than many SUV's that people still continue to buy.

Opec is still a problem though but this should help us consume less gas

OPEC is nowhere near the problem that overuse is. When you've got a nation of nearly a third of a billion people buying 10, 20, 30 gallons of gas a week, the demand, and thus, the price, is much higher, as I've already demonstrated. Regardless of if it's put out by OPEC or not, the more oil you have to pump and refine, the more it's going to cost. Moreover, the more people pump and need gas, the more they are willing to pay.

At 8/24/05 04:55 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: Well it's basic problem solving take the simplest most direct answer and work your way back

if price caps wont work then what about pumping everywhere in the USA to drive down our price and if we have enough in Texas CA Florida and Alaska we can flood the market and drive Opec out of bussiness

But what's the point? Oil is a finite resource. We have a static amount. The faster we pump it out, the faster we run out.

Again, look at the graph below. We could go drilling every square inch with reckless abandon and go out and boost oil production by building hosts of refineries and oil wells. We would shift the supply curve over to S1. As we pump though, our oil fields lose productivity and dry up, and the supply curve slowly shifts back over to S, what it was before.

On the other hand, by reducing gas consumption, the demand curve will shift from D to D1. If we drove more fuel effiecient vehicles, and drove less, then there's less overall demand, and prices go down, without shortening the life of our oil reserves in the long term to save a few cents in the short term.

By the way , here is the latest radar imagery out of Miami.

http://www.srh.noaa...ridge/amx_long.shtml

The wind speeds as of the 5 pm update is 45 mph with higher gusts, extending 70 miles (110 km) from the center of the storm.

At 8/24/05 04:32 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: direct solution to gas prices price caps

Yes, that will fix prices. But it will also cause a severe shortage of gasoline. Anybody who has even a most basic knowledge of economics can tell you this.

Look at the graph below. Where the demand curve and supply curve intersect is where the fair market price is. When you put artificial price caps on a product, the quantity demanded at that price far exceeds the quantity supplied at that price, causing a shortage.

Would you rather have to pay $3.00 for a gallon of gas, or risk not being able to buy any at all?

§=====§=====§=====§=====§

Florida might be under the gun for yet another hurricane! Tropical Storm Katrina is located in the Bahamas right now, and is moving towards the west-north-west towards the Eastern Coast of Florida.

The latest forecast has it making landfall around Boca Raton early Friday as a Cat. 1 hurricane. Its forecast then to move west across Florida, move out into the Gulf, and restrengthen into a hurricane, then hit Florida again, this time on the panhandle!

2x Combo Hit!

Hurricane watches are already out!

Visit www.nhc.noaa.gov for more information.