The Supreme court

Sam · #31 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheYellowDog

Maybe your partisan blinders are getting in the way. First off, I never said that caring about the environment was a bad thing. I said that the government shouldn't force us into something that is supposed to "help" us if we don't even know that we are fising a problem with this "help". Given, somethings need to be regulated (child labour, pesticides, and so forth), but they need to be regulated for all of the goods that we use in America, and there are not as many goods that need to be regulated as we seem to think here.

With regulation: when we set a standard for regulation on goods and services in America we need to make sure that all of the goods and services we use meet the same standards, otherwise we're just exporting our troubles (and if it's an environmental concern we're not fixing anything at all). That's not very good now is it?

Yellow dog I do not think you even understand what we are talking about. this is not about goods and services. i would recommend you read alittle on the subject then make a decision before deciding to follow a political agenda.

I think you will surprised at how many republicans are ready to face this issue.

The site that sour claw linked is a good non partisan site to begin and it explains the terminology and basics.

TheYellowDog · #32 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 10:36 PM

"Anticipating that Kyoto Accords-like carbon dioxide emissions restrictions on U.S. businesses will soon become a fact-of-life, Hofmeister said that Shell Oil — which franchises 261 Shell-branded gas stations in Maryland and cooperates, with Saudi Oil Inc., the huge Baltimore intake terminal — is OK with that as long as the requirements are federally imposed across all states."

Or do U.S. businesses not produce goods?

Maybe you should realize what party you are trying to disprove before you start name-calling.

Sam · #33 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 11:46 PM

Yellow Dog I do not name call. You are young I would encourage you to read all information before jumping to a partisan response. I did . Everything i could get my hands on both proving and disproving and then i knew what was right.

Yes we know about goods. Thats not what we were discussing at that point.. You just copied what I linked. Anyway it is a complex subject. Good luck. I hope you consider reading all you can before making a decision.If not then That is your choice.

Sam · #34 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheYellowDog

CO2? It's essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants use it to live. This is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard.

This is what I am talking about Yellowdog.You need to read a lot more if thats is what you know about c02 and its effects on health and the enviornment. With a small statement of knowledge you decided something was "dumb"

Kix · #35 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

There are specific threats that should not panic but determine our resolve to address. In my mind they are in this order:

Nuclear proliferation

Terrorism

Global Warming

They need addressed and faced with a plan ,logic and consequences of the plan carefully considered and executed. Fear Mongering is not needed for any of these but intelligent people understanding the facts and planning and responding in manner that solves the problems with the least negative consequences.

Yellow dog if you want a tutorial on C02 and why our body eliminates it and what happens when C02 from emissions spikes in the atmosphere review the Cooney thread.

Okay, here's your plan

PROBLEM- Nuclear proliferation
SOLUTION- We get rid of all our nukes.

PROBLEM- Terrorism
SOLUTION- Our enemies see we've gotten rid of all our nukes so there's no more reason for terrorism.

PROBLEM- Global Warming
SOLUTION- Half the frigging planet goes up in a bright puff of smoke because our enemies nuke us. Any country left that wasn't a 3rd world country is now so everyone's back to horse and buggy days' except there aren't many horses left. Global warming reaches its peak and then quickly subsides but we don't have to worry about it anymore.

Dom1 · #36 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Should the SC be making this sort of ruling or should the legislative branch do something? Should the companies (in article) be allowed to do this on thier own?

The statement about the SC deciding if the federal government should regulate CO2 emissions is not what they are doing. What they are doing is just deciding whether the EPA has the authority to make these regulations. The SC isn't going to be mandating any regulations at all.

Sam · #37 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

Okay, here's your plan

PROBLEM- Nuclear proliferation
SOLUTION- We get rid of all our nukes.

PROBLEM- Terrorism
SOLUTION- Our enemies see we've gotten rid of all our nukes so there's no more reason for terrorism.

PROBLEM- Global Warming
SOLUTION- Half the frigging planet goes up in a bright puff of smoke because our enemies nuke us. Any country left that wasn't a 3rd world country is now so everyone's back to horse and buggy days' except there aren't many horses left. Global warming reaches its peak and then quickly subsides but we don't have to worry about it anymore.

LOL that is not My soluton but funny. I am leaving to go to Portland for a conference but quickly I have to tell you one scientists thoughts on global warming. He agrees with the consensus it is real but thinks its just part of Gods plan to rid the earth of about one third of humans because the earth is self cleansing.

Sam · #38 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

The statement about the SC deciding if the federal government should regulate CO2 emissions is not what they are doing. What they are doing is just deciding whether the EPA has the authority to make these regulations. The SC isn't going to be mandating any regulations at all.

Yes Dom you are correct. this is not even realy directly on global warming but just an interpretation of a law from 1970. They are deciding whether to even "hear" the case.

Another point the televison media is acting as though the ruling is somehow an indication on whether the court joins the consensus of scientists on global warming. Not so , if they do "hear" the case it is simply on that law and what pollutants is within the EPA guidelines to regulate.

StormanNorman · #39 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

LOL that is not My soluton but funny. I am leaving to go to Portland for a conference but quickly I have to tell you one scientists thoughts on global warming. He agrees with the consensus it is real but thinks its just part of Gods plan to rid the earth of about one third of humans because the earth is self cleansing.

Makes sense to me. Were just like every other animal; if we outgrow our ecosystem, Mother Earth finds ways to correct the imbalance.

George O Well · #40 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 12:27 PM

"I said that the government shouldn't force us into something that is supposed to "help" us if we don't even know that we are fising a problem with this "help"."

>>>Are you one of those who believe that dumping billions of tons of shit into the environment CAN be a good thing?