Proposition 23

[sd_matt]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=sd_matt]If you are gonna quote Huffington Post about green energy then I’m gonna quote Rush Limbaugh about the ability of gays and women to serve in the military (While ignoring the experience of the Israeli Military).
[/quote]

There are a few problems with this:
(1) This thread has nothing to do with gays in the military
(2) I don’t give a rat’s about gays in the military.

My goodness, your attempt at goat-getting failed miserably. If you want to discuss gays in the military, please start a new thread. Don’t hold your breath waiting for me to participate in such thread.

[quote=sd_matt]
I’ll bet you still haven’t watched the “Should Google go nuclear” video. Now I know why. The person who gives that presentation, Dr. Bussard, used to run Los Alamos. He is an actual scientist. You would rather listen to Ariana Huffington.
LOL[/quote]

What does that presentation have to do with Proposition 23? You’ve made some wild, illogical leaps in your post. Please dial down the tard level in any subsequent posts. Intelligent readers will appreciate it.[/quote]

The point is your sources leave a lot to be desired. Can I make that any more clear.
The video is VERY relevant as it discusses some of the problems with alternative energies…politically speaking. Is it directly related to Prop 23? Maybe maybe not. It also shows just how ineffective our R&D is.

Is that not relevant to you?

Very well with the goat getting…I’ll refrain.

Now, what in your opinion, is contained in AB 32 that will encourage the development of cheap/ green energy that everyone will line up to buy?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.

[Anonymous]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding[/quote]

This claim is vastly out of proportion.

It may be true that academic researchers have financial incentive to find something that isn’t there. It’s well known in academia that nobody gets published for research that yields “negative” results. So there is always a bias toward finding something.

Here are some numbers to think about:

– How many climate researchers are there in the world? What portion of their total compensation is at risk because of this debate? Of those that feel their compensation is at risk, what percentage would intentionally lie to skew results?

– How many corporations in the world believe that their profits are at risk because of this debate? How much total profit is at risk? What percentage would be willing to lie to the public in order to skew results in their favor?

Make some educated guesses and do the math.

I don’t have exact numbers, but common sense tells us the ratio of money being used to misrepresent the facts is easily 10 to 1.

I mean, we’re talking about the population of college professors studying an obscure subject vs. the largest corporations on earth.

There are lots of sound economic reasons to argue against regulation that attempts to control pollution and other externalities. Not all pollution control ideas are good ones.

But the idea that both sides in the global-warming debate have comparable propaganda budgets is sheer nonsense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding[/quote]

This claim is vastly out of proportion.

It may be true that academic researchers have financial incentive to find something that isn’t there. It’s well known in academia that nobody gets published for research that yields “negative” results. So there is always a bias toward finding something.

Here are some numbers to think about:

– How many climate researchers are there in the world? What portion of their total compensation is at risk because of this debate? Of those that feel their compensation is at risk, what percentage would intentionally lie to skew results?

– How many corporations in the world believe that their profits are at risk because of this debate? How much total profit is at risk? What percentage would be willing to lie to the public in order to skew results in their favor?

Make some educated guesses and do the math.

I don’t have exact numbers, but common sense tells us the ratio of money being used to misrepresent the facts is easily 10 to 1.

I mean, we’re talking about the population of college professors studying an obscure subject vs. the largest corporations on earth.

There are lots of sound economic reasons to argue against regulation that attempts to control pollution and other externalities. Not all pollution control ideas are good ones.

But the idea that both sides in the global-warming debate have comparable propaganda budgets is sheer nonsense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding[/quote]

This claim is vastly out of proportion.

It may be true that academic researchers have financial incentive to find something that isn’t there. It’s well known in academia that nobody gets published for research that yields “negative” results. So there is always a bias toward finding something.

Here are some numbers to think about:

– How many climate researchers are there in the world? What portion of their total compensation is at risk because of this debate? Of those that feel their compensation is at risk, what percentage would intentionally lie to skew results?

– How many corporations in the world believe that their profits are at risk because of this debate? How much total profit is at risk? What percentage would be willing to lie to the public in order to skew results in their favor?

Make some educated guesses and do the math.

I don’t have exact numbers, but common sense tells us the ratio of money being used to misrepresent the facts is easily 10 to 1.

I mean, we’re talking about the population of college professors studying an obscure subject vs. the largest corporations on earth.

There are lots of sound economic reasons to argue against regulation that attempts to control pollution and other externalities. Not all pollution control ideas are good ones.

But the idea that both sides in the global-warming debate have comparable propaganda budgets is sheer nonsense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding[/quote]

This claim is vastly out of proportion.

It may be true that academic researchers have financial incentive to find something that isn’t there. It’s well known in academia that nobody gets published for research that yields “negative” results. So there is always a bias toward finding something.

Here are some numbers to think about:

– How many climate researchers are there in the world? What portion of their total compensation is at risk because of this debate? Of those that feel their compensation is at risk, what percentage would intentionally lie to skew results?

– How many corporations in the world believe that their profits are at risk because of this debate? How much total profit is at risk? What percentage would be willing to lie to the public in order to skew results in their favor?

Make some educated guesses and do the math.

I don’t have exact numbers, but common sense tells us the ratio of money being used to misrepresent the facts is easily 10 to 1.

I mean, we’re talking about the population of college professors studying an obscure subject vs. the largest corporations on earth.

There are lots of sound economic reasons to argue against regulation that attempts to control pollution and other externalities. Not all pollution control ideas are good ones.

But the idea that both sides in the global-warming debate have comparable propaganda budgets is sheer nonsense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding[/quote]

This claim is vastly out of proportion.

It may be true that academic researchers have financial incentive to find something that isn’t there. It’s well known in academia that nobody gets published for research that yields “negative” results. So there is always a bias toward finding something.

Here are some numbers to think about:

– How many climate researchers are there in the world? What portion of their total compensation is at risk because of this debate? Of those that feel their compensation is at risk, what percentage would intentionally lie to skew results?

– How many corporations in the world believe that their profits are at risk because of this debate? How much total profit is at risk? What percentage would be willing to lie to the public in order to skew results in their favor?

Make some educated guesses and do the math.

I don’t have exact numbers, but common sense tells us the ratio of money being used to misrepresent the facts is easily 10 to 1.

I mean, we’re talking about the population of college professors studying an obscure subject vs. the largest corporations on earth.

There are lots of sound economic reasons to argue against regulation that attempts to control pollution and other externalities. Not all pollution control ideas are good ones.

But the idea that both sides in the global-warming debate have comparable propaganda budgets is sheer nonsense.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.[/quote]

I’d guess that has more to do with cheap labor than excessive regulations. Not that I think things should be over-regulated, just that regulations can benefit us even more than no regulations. There is a balance.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.[/quote]

I’d guess that has more to do with cheap labor than excessive regulations. Not that I think things should be over-regulated, just that regulations can benefit us even more than no regulations. There is a balance.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.[/quote]

I’d guess that has more to do with cheap labor than excessive regulations. Not that I think things should be over-regulated, just that regulations can benefit us even more than no regulations. There is a balance.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Further, the oil spill itself caused way more economic damage than the moratorium. The article I posted earlier in this thread said 25% of the nation’s small businesses were negatively impacted by the oil spill.
[/quote]

Glad to see you agree the Government regulation ADDED to the damages.

That’s right, the Government regulations took a bad situation and made it worse. This is typical Government regulation impact. Clean water is good, clean air is good. Something is funny when a business has to put water into the sewer cleaner than it comes out of the tap because of their business and the regulations.

What examples do we have? Hmm, I don’t know. Why did Denny’s restuarants, a local California firm move it’s HQ jobs out of California?

Why did Nissan move it’s work from Los Angeles’ South Bay to Tennesee?

Why does Apple manufacture it’s computers in China?

DayStar makes Photovoltaic cells, guess what, they’re setting up manufacturing overseas instead of here in California.

SMA America manufactures Solar Power systems based in the Bay Area, where are they building their new $200 Million plant? Denver.

Power One, a Camarillo manufacture of Solar Power systems is building in Phoenix, 350 jobs to Phoenix instead of California.[/quote]

I’d guess that has more to do with cheap labor than excessive regulations. Not that I think things should be over-regulated, just that regulations can benefit us even more than no regulations. There is a balance.

[Author]

Posts