[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by GDB

This isn't taxation in the sense that, if you buy a gas guzzler, you are taxed more. It was if you buy green, you're taxed less. There's a difference. Taxing more is a penalty, taxing less is an incentive. That's not the same as controlling, and you know it full well.

I really couldn't care less. People aren't buying into it because the cars are expensive. Last I checked, the economy isn't that amazing, which means people don't have almost 30k to drop on a car for better mileage. It has nothing to do with "control." And the better mileage is why the majority of people bought it, not the "green" factor.

Again a red herring.
This has nothing to do with what kind of automobile people want.
This has to do with politicians like Obama telling you (through emissions testing, fuel cost increases via taxation, etc.) what kinds of cars you can own.
Just because a politician doesn't make a decree or use military/police force doesn't mean it isn't a form of control.
If you have to have an emissions sticker or not be able to use your property (drive your car), then that is a form of direct control.
There's no denying that.

I'm curious how this controls what kind of house you can buy. All I can see is that the Tea Party says that's the case, and considering how crazy they usually are, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they say things such as that. In fact, all I keep seeing are examples of the Tea Party stopping things that would help people, such as high speed public transportation. It just reads like a huge conspiracy theory from them.

The Tea Party?
What do they have to do with Agenda 21?
The opposition to Agenda 21 is being driven by farmers, ranchers, and rural communities who produce our food.
They don't want to live under this green tyranny, and there is a growing number who agree that UN Agenda 21 is more harmful than good.

You did no such thing, but keep patting yourself on the back if it makes you feel better. A lot of what you're saying is basically the same thing Fox says.

I highly doubt FauxNews would dare say anything close to what I do.
They're not interested in the truth.

Whether the 90% claim is true or not, what does that matter? How does that affect an individual purchasing a gun? You make a lot of claims, but then just jump to the worst possible conclusion and make the assertion that it's true.

It matters a great deal when you're the President of the US trying to sway public opinion towards an agenda.

No, they don't. They can express hatred within reason, but they cannot defame, injure, or incite violence. This is how the law currently stands.

Why didn't you address the issue of "hate-crime" laws?
That's what my point was about, yet you dodged it, why?

First point: It's not a religion. Just because people believe it doesn't make it a religion, especially when there's evidence that it's true. Do you think math is a religion too?
Second point: How is it a violation of the separation of church and state?
Third point: Even if you somehow manage to link the second point coherently, how do you denounce this but not the extreme Christian pervasiveness in the GOP?

It's not a religion huh?
Better let the 7th circuit court of appeals know that, because they have ruled that atheism is a religion in KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY.
In so far as our discussion is concerned, atheism is a religion subject to the separation of church and state clause of the 1st amendment.

As to the "evidence" for Darwinian evolutionary theory being as scientific as mathematics, show me the mathematical formula for mutation of an ape/hominid into a man.
When you can do that, then I'll amend my opinion on the subject.
But as it stands now, I see nothing but conjecture on the part of those fundamentialist-atheists (as opposed to the far more reasonable kind) who are making grandiose claims of the origins of man.
They are no better, nor different, in their claim than the Christians who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.
I've seen their "evidence" (Ken Hovind comes to mind...and not in a good way. ) and they're as nutty as the Darwinians.

Then what are you complaining about? You're up in arms because of this supposed infringement of rights of being able to be a bigot, yet you clearly state yourself that there's no law that says you cannot be a bigot.

Clearly you're not mature enough to continue this conversation.
Oh, well, I tried.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

"Darwinism" is a made-up term that young-earth creationists...SNIP!"

Sorry Syn, but you are dead wrong on that.
Thomas Huxley used both of the terms "Darwinism" and "Evolutionist" in his writings and books, so no, it's not a construct of the Sundie Fundies, it is a term that has been used by both sides of this argument for over a century.

Edit: Stephen J. Gould is a gigantic moron and everyone who has looked at his claims with an objective mindset knows this. Believing anything that man says is silly.

Just because that socialist-pig Dr. John Maynard Smith ostracized Gould from the priesthood of Darwinian Fundamentalism doesn't mean Gould was wrong.
If Gould had written his article the other way, praising the foundation of the new religion of Darwinian Orthodoxy, he'd be a saint among them.

That's why Gould was ousted from the good graces of the Holy Church of Darwin.
He was accused of making up data and fabricating information to push his point.
Carl Sagan was accused of the same thing when he started to stray from the path.
Gould's main crime was that he dared challenge the orthodoxy of the book they made into their Bible (in contradiction to Huxley's warnings) the Origin of Species.

I've no problem with evolution per se, nor Darwin's theories, my problem is with those that have twisted Darwin's work (and the works of others) into something being used to fabricate what can only be called a new-age secular religion.

Normal atheists aren't like this, they don't get involved in the code of conduct being pushed forward by the Darwinian-Fundies like Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris.

Martin Rees is spot on about this and I agree with him that all fundamentalists (I would add of the Darwinian variety as well) need to be stopped from forming public policy.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

That's nonsense. Modern, smaller, leaner cars are a lot safer then the old clunkers, which on modern standards would be considered death on wheels. They break faster, they turn better, and when they do get into a collision they crumple so that very little of the shock is transferred to the passenger. They might look completely totaled, but if the car is totaled that means the passenger is much more likely to escape unscathed, as it will be the car absorbing all the energy in the impact.

Really, now you've roused my curiousity and I have to ask.
Why did my 87 Jeep Cherokee total a 2010 Prius with only a minor dent to the front quarter on the passenger side?
The driver of the prius went to the hospital with an injured knee, and I drove home after the cops let me go (no internal damage to the engine, suspension, or drivedrain).
The police said we hit head-on at about 30 mph through the intersection.

Without getting too far off topic here; would it be more accurate to say that some newer automobiles are safer than some older vehicles?

Meaning a vehicle that is engineered for rugged terrain and use like a Jeep, Hummer, or Range Rover is safer than say a Prius, Leaf, or Smartcar?

A big heavy car are often, in fact, more dangerous because their handling is so hard that it's difficult to break them out of a swerve.

I can assure you, modern cars are designed with safety in mind. If you want someone to blame for the decline of the American automobile, blame Toyota for building leaner, better, more reliable and safer cars, not the US government.

I didn't mention the decline of the American auto, I'm talking about "green" policies, specifically the CAFE standards being responsible for engines being built with incomplete combustion (go back a few posts).
As an engineering student you should be able to appreciate this article:
http://fuelsandlubes.com/conference/archives/2189

That is the problem with CAFE in the US.
Those standards put a strangle hold on the R&D of higher-ratio compression engines that would have had a more complete combustion and thus a cleaner emission.
It's not the creation of better performing automobiles I have a problem with, it's politicians trying to dictate development through policies designed to fit a "green" agenda and/or insulate the oil companies' profits by stifling new innovations.

One could actually argue that both "sides" of the argument benefit the oil industry.
By forcing the creation of automobiles that have higher mpg, you extend the life of the oil supplies and have an excuse to charge more for the same product.
By stifling new innovations, you ensure that no competing fuel source is ever developed.
Looks like win-win for Big Oil.

As for the emmissions, it's those standards you have to thank for many cities not being blanketed in fog.

As an Engineering student, I never heard anyone decrying those standards, most of the professionals I've met thought such things were a move in the right direction.

Fog?
Do you mean smog?
I'll assume you do.
Smog is caused primarily by coal burning power plants.Auto emissions contribute very little to it, and certainly not enough to justify the emissions testing that is nothing more than just a revenue generator.
If the idea is to curb smog or other air pollutants, then nuclear power is the best solution currently.
With hydrogen power plants as the next step beyond that.

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I'm sure it has. No different from the misinformed hoarders the article describes, though. As I said, the manufacturing process for a certain type will change - you won't have the government ordering you what bulbs to buy, or throwing you in prison for buying different ones.

Since we're on the subject, I should note that it wasn't Obama that banned the incandescent light bulb.
It was Bush.
Also, I didn't say you'd go to jail or couldn't possess them, I said the government is making it so you cannot buy them in the future.
It is not within the power of the federal government to make these kinds of laws, they are doing so under assumed authority and that is my point.
There is no need to ban these bulbs for public safety or security.

I believe someone was saying something about a strawman before...can't recall

Never claimed I did, never called for such things (at least as it pertains to non-violence-inciting speech). Though I'm unsure how shunning bigotry and thinking a society should always be aiming for its reduction--encouraging people to, indeed, "speak against it"--is fanatical.

Are you saying that you didn't mean that hate-crime laws should be applied to speech and carry a legal punishment?
If that's what you meant then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

You can't be claiming social darwinism is a trend of the current left rather than the right, and even libertarians like yourself? Hell, you've said some plenty socially darwinistic things on this very page, so while I definitely object to such a social system, I don't see what your objection is here, or why you'd be upset if it was a mainstream ideology of the left. Although, there are certainly no progressive reps or senators I'm aware of (all 3 of them) who espouse such beliefs.

I'm not, I'm saying they're both guilty as sin and again this is my point.
And I agree that in recent years the Randian-Objectivists are taking over the Libertarian party, and it's scary as hell for me.
I'm a classical liberal, I have no use for Aynn Rand's sick philosophy.
Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin.
Both are pushing us further into a police state.
Obama has continued and expanded the Patriot Act started by Bush.
If elected, Romney will do the same thing.
Obama signed the NDAA that the Tea Party Republicans of the house wanted, and further expanded the power of the presidency and the military for domestic issues.
The TSA that Bush created now has even more power under Obama, and if elected, Romney will no doubt continue the trend.
You see what I'm getting at?