Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
> It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
> They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
> Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
> people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
> the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually what
> goes up must come down.

It's actually both groups, plus some developers, and especially the
green movement.

The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
and climbing higher forever. The movement's leaders are all rich, white
people who own nice big houses on huge areas of land, and by stopping
most development and new infrastructure they can: (1) create and maintain
a huge shortage of good homes by "protecting" other people's unbuilt land
from use; (2) in particular, make sure that any unbuilt land near THEM
stays empty, so they can keep using it as "viewshed" without paying for
it; and (3) prevent the riff-raff [you and me, and especially minorities]
from moving in next door where their kids might meet ours.

The Sierra Club, and the green movement which it leads and typifies,
exists in order to convince the gullible that the members of this cabal
are unselfish benefactors to the world, when the truth is that they are
"gimme-ist" *******s who have more than enough money already, and use
the unfair power of government to ensure that you and I can never share
in their cherished lifestyle. They are classists, racists, and elitists.

It astounds me that any real liberal (are there any left?) would venerate
such a bunch of hypocrites.

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
>> It's not the urban planning assholes, it's the un-real estate agents.
>> They've been pumping the bubble with happy gas for over a decade now.
>> Unfortuntely, in order to keep pumping the bubble, they had to sell to
>> people that were basically unable to really pay their prices, and finally
>> the bubble burst. They forgot the law of retail gravity. Eventually
>> what
>> goes up must come down.
>
> It's actually both groups, plus some developers, and especially the
> green movement.
>
> The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
> homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
> and climbing higher forever. The movement's leaders are all rich, white
> people who own nice big houses on huge areas of land, and by stopping
> most development and new infrastructure they can: (1) create and maintain
> a huge shortage of good homes by "protecting" other people's unbuilt land
> from use; (2) in particular, make sure that any unbuilt land near THEM
> stays empty, so they can keep using it as "viewshed" without paying for
> it; and (3) prevent the riff-raff [you and me, and especially minorities]
> from moving in next door where their kids might meet ours.
>
> The Sierra Club, and the green movement which it leads and typifies,
> exists in order to convince the gullible that the members of this cabal
> are unselfish benefactors to the world, when the truth is that they are
> "gimme-ist" *******s who have more than enough money already, and use
> the unfair power of government to ensure that you and I can never share
> in their cherished lifestyle. They are classists, racists, and elitists.
>
> It astounds me that any real liberal (are there any left?) would venerate
> such a bunch of hypocrites.

I haven't seen any liberals in years. Lots of LIEberals.

They want us to live in warehouses like the Russians do while they live in
their dachas.

Don't look now, but us conservative white males are in the minority in
America now.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

If you actually live in California, look around and see what the environuts
have already done to your state, WBMS


"Scott in SoCal" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, John David Galt
> > wrote:
>
>>The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
>>homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
>>and climbing higher forever.
>
> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
> I know I never will.

In article >,
Scott in SoCal > wrote:

> In message >, John David Galt
> > wrote:
>
> >The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices
> >of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
> >outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
>
> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is
> USENET I know I never will.

And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
full of environmentalists.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:28:27 -0500, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>If you actually live in California, look around and see what the environuts
>have already done to your state, WBMS

Yeah, the envirowackos have run roughshod over every other interest in their
quests, and either damage the Nation directly, or are useful idiots of those
with more malicious ends, such as those that would want high prices for things
such as real estate.

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>



snip


>>
>> I don't understand the subject line. I don't see fuel efficiency being
>> taxed. Just people being held to pay for the resources (road repair
>> and building) that they use.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> Fuel efficiency would be discouraged, and also the proposed tax would
> necessitate higher tax levels due to the buraucracy and infrastructure
> required to implement it, than would a straight increase in gas tax. The
> latter would not only continue incentivizing conservation but would a)
> be much more economical and b) would likely have the same or less impact
> on the average road user.
>
> nate
>


I would think that a per mile tax (gas) along with a sliding rate on
registration fees that reflect a particular vehicles impact on roads and
maintenance would be the way to go.

As such, large commercial vehicles would pay considerably more than sub
compact cars.

JT

On 2009-01-11, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> In message >, John David Galt
> wrote:
>
>>The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
>>homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
>>and climbing higher forever.
>
> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
> I know I never will.

The proof of it IMO is in the actions that they support that are counter
to environmentalism. I've heard and read of cases where through the
power of government (in different states) land was taken from its
rightful owners to preserve 'open space' and the like. Later on down the
road the land was sold by the government to insiders who then developed
it and built very expensive homes upon it. I didn't save the cites on it
but I have read/heard about it so it's not new to me.

Beyond that I think he is pointing out a subset of the "true purpose".
The true purpose is clearly that of a ruling class wishing to remain a
ruling class and have everything to themselves while the rest of us have
nothing.

It is my belief that if I were to develop a $10 zero point energy device
(I'm just using that as a 100% clean miricle energy source that would
preserve the environment and raise the standard of living world wide)
that could run a car or a home for 25 years that every attempt I made to
bring it to market would be blocked by government. I would also likely
be killed if that would prevent its release.

There are natural zero calorie sweeteners that have been blocked from
market in the USA by the FDA because of who stood to loose if they made
it to market. Now the FDA is slowly reversing itself on one that has
been used in Japan for 30 years because the soda giants want to use it.
And that's just the sugar industry...

On 2009-01-11, Tim McNamara > wrote:
> In article >,
> Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>
>> In message >, John David Galt
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices
>> >of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
>> >outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
>>
>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is
>> USENET I know I never will.
>
> And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
> full of environmentalists.

In the sense of using environmentalism to gain wealth and power, yes.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:20 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2009-01-11, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> In message >, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>
>>>The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
>>>homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
>>>and climbing higher forever.
>>
>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
>> I know I never will.
>
>The proof of it IMO is in the actions that they support that are counter
>to environmentalism. I've heard and read of cases where through the
>power of government (in different states) land was taken from its
>rightful owners to preserve 'open space' and the like. Later on down the
>road the land was sold by the government to insiders who then developed
>it and built very expensive homes upon it. I didn't save the cites on it
>but I have read/heard about it so it's not new to me.
>
>Beyond that I think he is pointing out a subset of the "true purpose".
>The true purpose is clearly that of a ruling class wishing to remain a
>ruling class and have everything to themselves while the rest of us have
>nothing.
>
>It is my belief that if I were to develop a $10 zero point energy device
>(I'm just using that as a 100% clean miricle energy source that would
>preserve the environment and raise the standard of living world wide)
>that could run a car or a home for 25 years that every attempt I made to
>bring it to market would be blocked by government. I would also likely
>be killed if that would prevent its release.

Undoubtedly why Fleischman and Ponds went public directly. Now nobody can
"duplicate the experiment." Yeah... right...

>
>There are natural zero calorie sweeteners that have been blocked from
>market in the USA by the FDA because of who stood to loose if they made
>it to market. Now the FDA is slowly reversing itself on one that has
>been used in Japan for 30 years because the soda giants want to use it.
>And that's just the sugar industry...
>
>
>

On 2009-01-12, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:17:20 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-01-11, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>> In message >, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices of
>>>>homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, outrageously high
>>>>and climbing higher forever.
>>>
>>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
>>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is USENET
>>> I know I never will.
>>
>>The proof of it IMO is in the actions that they support that are counter
>>to environmentalism. I've heard and read of cases where through the
>>power of government (in different states) land was taken from its
>>rightful owners to preserve 'open space' and the like. Later on down the
>>road the land was sold by the government to insiders who then developed
>>it and built very expensive homes upon it. I didn't save the cites on it
>>but I have read/heard about it so it's not new to me.
>>
>>Beyond that I think he is pointing out a subset of the "true purpose".
>>The true purpose is clearly that of a ruling class wishing to remain a
>>ruling class and have everything to themselves while the rest of us have
>>nothing.
>>
>>It is my belief that if I were to develop a $10 zero point energy device
>>(I'm just using that as a 100% clean miricle energy source that would
>>preserve the environment and raise the standard of living world wide)
>>that could run a car or a home for 25 years that every attempt I made to
>>bring it to market would be blocked by government. I would also likely
>>be killed if that would prevent its release.
>
> Undoubtedly why Fleischman and Ponds went public directly. Now nobody can
> "duplicate the experiment." Yeah... right...

Even with an explaination someone misses the point. Okay, I'll use wind
power. Remember when we were supposed to spend money developing and
building wind power when wind power didn't work and couldn't work? Where
if wind was used power would have to be rationed, etc? Now wind power
is working to a degree and guess what? Now wind power is bad. It chops
up birds and kills fish (when hydro electric has to use the spillways
because wind is over-generating) and the like. Wind power is ugly and
disturbs the view and every other objection that has appeared in the
last few years.

If you believe that people in power wouldn't kill to preserve it, I
suggest a better understanding of human society is in order. It is the
most ruthless that rise to the top. If you're not willing to kill either
directly or indirectly you won't get very far in the halls of power.


>>There are natural zero calorie sweeteners that have been blocked from
>>market in the USA by the FDA because of who stood to loose if they made
>>it to market. Now the FDA is slowly reversing itself on one that has
>>been used in Japan for 30 years because the soda giants want to use it.
>>And that's just the sugar industry...
>>
>>
>>