|
Wah wah! I hate paying for stuff!! (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
Allow me to substantiate how full of crap your statment is.
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
You say things like "You want us to go back to horse and buggies?" without even acknowledging alternative energy sources.
|
Actually, I did state in my original post quite clearly that one of the options would be for people to take notice and start developing alternative fuel sources or engines capable of running on something other than oil.
| quote: |
Your entire position relies so heavily on the mindset that we absolutely need both oil and cars, yet you want people to change their purchasing habits?
|
No, that's your assumption. See the point above.
| quote: | You want things to stay exactly the same as they are right now, and the only difference you seek is that you want it cheaper.
|
I want the same results cheaper - that much is true. Do I want oil to be cheaper? Well, the person who's stuck without many options at this time and paying for it - yes, I do want it to be cheaper. However, I do realize that greater purpose would be served if the prices of oil became so astronomical that it would not be feasible to continue on the pth of using fossil fuels anylonger. So, your conclusion is yet again off the mark.
| quote: | | People like you are the problem, not the solution. |
You don't know sh!t about me, yet here you are making all these conclusions about me. Perhaps you're projecting a miserable image of yourself onto others to make yourself feel better about the fact that you haven't ammounted to much, aside from being just an annoying prick with some devoted lemmings who think you're soooo coool!
| quote: |
So unless you like talking out of both sides of your mouth and arguing in favor of contradictions, I'd say it's you who needs to take his head out the sand here, not anyone else.
|
I'd rather be talking out of both sides of my mouth (which I don't think I am - for all the reasons described above) than talk out of my a$$ all the time like you.
| quote: |
And you haven't "busted on" me in the least. You're just wrong. |
You haven't made a single cohesive argument to prove your point and have resorted to blurbing out some idiotic insults without any substance. You did not say we can live without oil-consuming cars - you said we can live without cars period. Sure we can but that's not the way to solve the problem in today's day and age. If you don't happen to agree, why don't you stop driving and move to Amish country? They don't use cars, their energy resources are quite "organic" - sunlight, candles, and wood. Yet, here you are - burning up precious killowats to fuel your computer, so you can spew your idiotic babble.
Oh well, what can I expect from someone whose only substance consists of consuming the kind of it that most goverments have on an "illegal" list. Hence my previous post about smoking yourself retarded.
:crazy: |
|
|
| mezzir |
Wow, of all the methods you could've gone to tackle an argument, you go for calling him a pothead?
 |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| I call spade a spade... |
|
|
| mezzir |
| I win an argument by proving my opponent wrong ;) |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
I win an argument by proving my opponent wrong ;) |
Did you miss the rest of the comments in my post? Besides, I'm sure you realize that with RJT it's not a likely scenario to win an argument. How do you win an argument when person morphs one perception of his own making into another one, as the conversation moves along? It's like arguing with a 3rd grader. Besides, I don't really care who wins the argument - I didn't post to start this whole pi$$ing match. I was trying to make a point that at the rate that gas prices are moving now, how long will it be before people start taking a real notice and attempt to change things?
Simple. Yet here we are - 2 pages into a flame war over something that I thought was pretty obvious - situation sucks, what do you think will happen over the next few years?
silly, if you think about it. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
I agree on all points, but unfortunately there's too many s driving cars that are far too big for their own good. Some car company (Ford?) has an SUV that's a hybrid. Good start I suppose seeing as how too many soccer moms need SUVs. |
GM, Ford and Lexus all have hybrid SUVs either in development, or on the market.
emc^2: dont get a hybrid. they are a waste unless coupled with diesel. also dont get an ethanol burner either. they are also a waste.
Honda FCX Clarity should be everyones choice. Fuel cell vehicle available in the USA. Ok not really the USA. Only available at select dealers in southern california. |
|
|
| mezzir |
Hah I'm not arguing other than that tacking that pothead comment on the end of that post was a ing terrible idea and shattered all credibility you may or may not have had.
On a separate note, ethanol. Terrible terrible terrible terrible horrible idea :mad: |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
Hah I'm not arguing other than that tacking that pothead comment on the end of that post was a ing terrible idea and shattered all credibility you may or may not have had.
On a separate note, CORN ethanol. Terrible terrible terrible terrible horrible idea :mad: |
fixed. Sugar cane based ethanol has one of the highest yields possible on the ethanol front, and doesn't require MASSIVE crops to create very little ethanol. It is currently used nationwide in Brazil. I'm sure Marcus can give more info on the prices of ethanol at the pump. Since all the cars there support the use of ethanol, there's no price premium on the automobiles sold there. |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
Hah I'm not arguing other than that tacking that pothead comment on the end of that post was a ing terrible idea and shattered all credibility you may or may not have had. |
Well, doesn't stop politicians from either using it in their arguments... Nor does it prevent them from being elected into the white house. The way I look at it - we had 2 substance abusers in the white house for the last 16 years, so - in today's day and age it's not as much of a classification, more of a "qualification for the job".
:tongue3
I do concede that it may have been in poor taste and reactionary in nature. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
The truth hurts. |
Ahahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahaha, hahahahaha!! |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
Hah I'm not arguing other than that tacking that pothead comment on the end of that post was a ing terrible idea and shattered all credibility you may or may not have had.
|
He didn't have any to begin with, especially considering his first reaction was to head to the personal insult (which we all know is really the way you win an internet argument, right?). ;)
I also find it interesting how anytime someone has exactly what they've said thrown right back at them I'm all of a sudden distorting their meaning, and twisting their words in such a way that they "can't" win. The only person who's position has changed (or at least remained ambiguous in this debate) is Mr. Squared.
And I love how this all of sudden turned into a "point for discussion" - yeah right. You really want to call a spade a spade, then this whole rigamarole began because of emc^2 whining about how difficult high gas prices have made his life.
:stongue:
Classic. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Yeah seriously. It's too bad he deleted that thread, because he was definitely bitching about not wanting to pay for gas. Fag. |
|
|
|
|
