In response to:

Liberals Have All The Answers, But Their Answers Aren't Actually True

PhillupSpace2 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 3:11 AM
Ransom, will you add this to your "things to do list"? As Denzel Washington said in the movie "Philadelphia", tell us like we were 6 years old! Tell us about "Carbon Credits". I remember a time when the idea was to buy Tax Credits from another company but those credits could only be used by one of you. When you buy carbon credits does someone else pollute less because they have sold their allowable pollution allowance? If people had enough money to buy sufficient carbon credits could they pollute like Beijing? Is it something like a "sin Tax" simply paying to be allowed to be bad? Paying the cops not to come down to the tenderloin? If Al Gore purchases carbon credits who gets the money? And how much?
Daddio7 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:05 AM
They have a plan. They figure how much carbon the environment can stand and everyone gets a share.The only way to use more than your share is buy someones else's. That way people affected would have cash and polluters would only pollute up to their limit. The law would have real teeth with huge fines and property seizure for violators. These people are dangerous.
Seawolf Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:24 AM
They sure are, most are insane. They got that stupid idea from the Popes of old who sold indulgences to the ignorant..We still have those ignorant fools around and with the greedy they comprise 51% of the electorate as witnessed by a communist usurper in the WH. You know others are making out on this green garbage or they'd have laughed al gore out of town for the lunatic that he is.
Kevin 354 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 7:21 AM
From our founding the whiskey consumer paid the debt for the cost of the Revolutionary War. Nobody sold whiskey like George Washington, he was the Comander in Chief. By all means, it could have been fairy dust, and not whiskey. Do you believe in fairy dust? People buy it everyday.
Rich L. Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 6:45 AM
Well, yes it is like paying to be bad. Like environmental fines for polluting. For some companies, it was more cost effective to pay the fine every day than to spend the billions to fix the plant not to pollute.

If government ran on a cost/benefit analysis model, we would be much better off and there would be much less government.
Flubadub Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:15 AM
How can you get rid of guilt. Buy a get out of guilt free card from Algore. If Algore gets enough money maybe he will continue to over eat and explode, one can hope.
Dan107 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 8:39 AM
hat would be environmentally damaging, Flub.

Moonbat Exterminator wrote: JR, your assertion that computing a single number for the average temperature of the planet is mathematically impossible is incorrect. It would in fact be a simple, straightforward calculation. In statistics, it's called the mean of sampling means. The weakness of such a statistic is that the enormous variability in the data far exceeds the variability in that number. Even the 90 % confidence interval would be much larger than the variations in that average, making it useless from a practical standpoint. - Al Gore Warming

Dear Moon,

I think we are talking about two different things,...