The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 84

Thread: Cap-and-Trade

  1. #51
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Genacide View Post
    What I should have inserted into my last post is that I'm all for reducing carbon emmisions through Nuclear power... more of a bi product is the reduction than the goal. I think if the free market could decide we would have more Nuclear power plants, but with the unnecessary regulations on Nuclear power, were stuck with other options that are not as cost effective.


    ... it all made sense in my head at some point.



    By the way, I completely agree with the general sentiment that the government seems to be moving suspiciously fast on this.

  2. #52
    Senior Member BilltheButcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    By the way, I completely agree with the general sentiment that the government seems to be moving suspiciously fast on this.
    On this? How about everything. What happened to posting every bill for 5 days on the internet and letting the public read thing? So much for transperancy - isn't this one of the hatreds of the Bush administration? This administration is just as bad or worse, since the Democratic run congress doesn't even read the bills.
    Never shall innocent blood be shed, yet the blood of the wicked shall flow like a river. The Three shall spread their blackened wings and be the vengeful striking hammer of God.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    Exhibit B of the unfocused, unproductive discussion I pointed out. I am discussing the market mechanism at hand. Feel free to bait other members with your pseudo-scientific ramblings. I'm not interested in the "global warming is real, global warming is a hoax" unending back and forth.
    Other than the fragment of a sentence you think defines my post - which it doesn't - please cite me baiting, being unfocused, or unproductive.

  4. #54
    WBB's Juggernaut/Liason BigCorey75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The only place where you can mix Alcohol and Live Ammunition and its called a "Family Outing", Texas
    Posts
    4,404
    hmmm

    imo opinion we need to look at "global warming" and its validity, in basic mathematical logical thoughts.


    There are two sides, Global warming is cause directly by human carbon emmissions, and Global warming is a hoax and were just in a warm period.

    from those two sides there are two possible solutions.

    We move swiftly and effectively at reducing carbon emissions and invest wisely into building clean energy alternatives in order to slow the emission of carbon into our atmosphere that we do.

    B we do nothing.

    Now apply both solutions to both arguments

    Arguement 1 solution A. We save the planet, we make the proper moves and over the years global warming ends

    Argument 1 solution B we spend lots of money on infrastructure that it turned we dont need


    Argument 2 solution A we spend lots of money on infrstructure turns out we dont need

    Argument 2 solution B we dont nothing, nothing happens life keeps on going.

    There is a whole array of details to go into and for the sake of typing ad reading ill attach this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

    very interesting watch, uses basic logic and not a doom or gloom, just using basic facts and logic and mathematical probabilities as to possible outcomes



    now as far as Cap and Trade to solve the problem. the way the economy has been going as of late this is the last thing we need another tax reform to add more money to the ever growing government and taking more money from the people in the form of increasing everyday expenses on living and doing.

    there is a solution, i dont think this is the best one
    Last edited by BigCorey75; 06-29-2009 at 12:23 PM.
    Why live if one can not Deadlift?- John Paul Sigmasson

    Accept that which is useful and reject what is not- Bruce Lee

    Reason and Logic trump religion- Me

    Restriction of education, Censorship of knowledge, and Proliferation of religion helps keep the masses tamed- Me

    "Money does not fix everything, Smart fixes everything"

  5. #55
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by rainjack View Post
    Other than the fragment of a sentence you think defines my post - which it doesn't - please cite me baiting, being unfocused, or unproductive.
    Sweet.

    Surely you won't mind going back to the post directed at me, and explain how it fits into the topic of Genacide's thread: the cost of the legislation, and how to manage it more efficiently.

    Again, the debate about the costs assumes carbon emissions should be lowered. That is the topic of conversation.

    You assume that carbon emissions should not be lowered at all. That's fine, but the economics of the plan are irrelevant to you, and so is this thread. You should start a new thread whining about the liberal media and how evil scientists are trying to increase your gas bill. I would prefer to keep the discussion with Genacide on-topic.

  6. #56
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by BilltheButcher View Post
    On this? How about everything.
    We disagree here, with the blanket statement "everything". Some policy action decisions require quick action. I'm always wary to apply absolutes.

    But yet again, I agree with the general sentiment on the climate bill. I doubt the fate of our planet is going to be changed if we allow an extra month for debate. Let people understand exactly what is going on................as long as the debate is properly framed. It currently is not, by either party. It's currently framed as the "evil nazi, stupid hippie" metaphor I listed above, and both parties seem happy to play to their stereotypes.

  7. #57
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCorey75 View Post
    now as far as Cap and Trade to solve the problem.


    Many people don't agree there is a problem. If there IS a problem, cap-and-trade is likely one of the more efficient ways of solving it.

    Unfortunately, Washington is avoiding that argument.

  8. #58
    Tap, Rack, Bacon ncsuLuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,348
    I would say cap and trade is theoretically the best way to reduce carbon emissions from and economics standpoint but my problem with it is that it will become another poorly ran and exploited program.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    We disagree here, with the blanket statement "everything". Some policy action decisions require quick action. I'm always wary to apply absolutes.

    But yet again, I agree with the general sentiment on the climate bill. I doubt the fate of our planet is going to be changed if we allow an extra month for debate. Let people understand exactly what is going on................as long as the debate is properly framed. It currently is not, by either party. It's currently framed as the "evil nazi, stupid hippie" metaphor I listed above, and both parties seem happy to play to their stereotypes.
    The underlying assumption for your argument is that our representatives actually do that: represent the wishes of their constituents. I think that ended long ago.

  10. #60
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsuLuke View Post
    I would say cap and trade is theoretically the best way to reduce carbon emissions from and economics standpoint but my problem with it is that it will become another poorly ran and exploited program.
    I agree. As with Universal Healthcare, "Free" Higher Education, and many other very good and efficient ideas from other countries the question is...can our Government really implement it effectively?
    "You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones."- Quran 16:25

    "A life unexamined is not worth living"- Socrates

  11. #61
    Tap, Rack, Bacon ncsuLuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK View Post
    I agree. As with Universal Healthcare, "Free" Higher Education, and many other very good and efficient ideas from other countries the question is...can our Government really implement it effectively?
    judging from our past performance I bet the answer would be no

  12. #62
    Senior Member Invain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,948
    Theoretically universal health care would be a great idea - as long as ANYBODY but our government were running it. Same goes for pretty much every other social program IMO.
    Best lifts: 615/475/660, Raw w/ Wraps
    http://www.youtube.com/user/invain622002

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    Sweet.


    Again, the debate about the costs assumes carbon emissions should be lowered. That is the topic of conversation.
    Again, define carbon emissions. You can't get to the costs part until you define the scope of what is to be reduced.

    "Carbon emissions" is way too broad a term to gloss over.

  14. #64
    Senior Member BFGUITAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,620
    Quote Originally Posted by rainjack View Post
    Again, define carbon emissions. You can't get to the costs part until you define the scope of what is to be reduced.

    "Carbon emissions" is way too broad a term to gloss over.
    Carbon emissions means any form of carbon dioxide emissions. This can include burning coal, burning fossil fuels, making hydrogen gas from fossil fuels... So in turn this includes cars and coal burning plants.
    Brad08 has some insight for people who don't understand... anything.
    This is so ****ing ******ed it's almost beyond belief. So, if you eat 3k, you will automatically gain 3k worth of fat or muscle? Incredible. And here I am eating all this food, yet maintaining my weight. Fascinating.

    You're one of those pussies that counts his almonds I bet.

  15. #65
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by geoffsherman View Post
    The underlying assumption for your argument is that our representatives actually do that: represent the wishes of their constituents. I think that ended long ago.

    My underlying assumption is that they should. I agree with you, they don't. The goal is re-election.

    The reality is that the arguments on Fox News and CNN and WSJ and NYTimes resemble this thread.

  16. #66
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsuLuke View Post
    I would say cap and trade is theoretically the best way to reduce carbon emissions from and economics standpoint but my problem with it is that it will become another poorly ran and exploited program.

    It seemed to work somewhat well for sulfur emissions. It isn't really a government program. The government sets the supply. Then they allow private businesses to set the market-clearing price.

    If you buy the economics, then the only disagreement is with whatever the government sets the level of carbon output at. And that's a different thread..........hopefully. One I have no interest in being involved in.

  17. #67
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by rainjack View Post
    Again, define carbon emissions.

    Well hello there. Feel free to play semantics with Mr. Webster. I am uninterested.


    Besides, you are distracting the grown-ups; we are having a pleasant discussion.

  18. #68
    WBB's Juggernaut/Liason BigCorey75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The only place where you can mix Alcohol and Live Ammunition and its called a "Family Outing", Texas
    Posts
    4,404
    lol @ shooter
    Why live if one can not Deadlift?- John Paul Sigmasson

    Accept that which is useful and reject what is not- Bruce Lee

    Reason and Logic trump religion- Me

    Restriction of education, Censorship of knowledge, and Proliferation of religion helps keep the masses tamed- Me

    "Money does not fix everything, Smart fixes everything"

  19. #69
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    If you buy the economics, then the only disagreement is with whatever the government sets the level of carbon output at. And that's a different thread..........hopefully. One I have no interest in being involved in.
    And that's the conundrum, do US politicians have access to the expertise necessary to make such decisions? Do they have the independency required to tackle such an issue? Very interesting debate to be had there.
    "You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones."- Quran 16:25

    "A life unexamined is not worth living"- Socrates

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    469
    One by one they'll all die. It's always good to look at the brighter side of things.
    23 years old
    5' 6"
    153 lbs


    Bench: 315
    Deadlift: 400
    Squat: 425

  21. #71
    Tap, Rack, Bacon ncsuLuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    It seemed to work somewhat well for sulfur emissions. It isn't really a government program. The government sets the supply. Then they allow private businesses to set the market-clearing price.

    If you buy the economics, then the only disagreement is with whatever the government sets the level of carbon output at. And that's a different thread..........hopefully. One I have no interest in being involved in.
    check out the link I provided to the Rolling Stone article about Goldman Sachs on this very subject.

  22. #72
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Invain View Post
    Awesome post. Too bad the average american is a ****ing ****** that would rather believe Al Gore than a credited scientist.
    I was just re-reading this thread.

    Don't take this as a personal attack, but you've mentioned your skepticism with the scientific method before, but now you seem to support it when it fits within your own belief system.

  23. #73
    1471, gotta have it Kenny Powers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    127
    here is an excellent article which pretty well describes my position on the matter. no one on this site will read it im sure, but it does an excellent job explaining what "cap and trade" is really about.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1460...ters-investors

  24. #74
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK View Post
    And that's the conundrum, do US politicians have access to the expertise necessary to make such decisions? Do they have the independency required to tackle such an issue? Very interesting debate to be had there.


    No.

    But neither do economists or players in private industry. Which is why this becomes a regulatory issue.

  25. #75
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsuLuke View Post
    check out the link I provided to the Rolling Stone article about Goldman Sachs on this very subject.

    The setup on Scribbs is actually very inconvenient to read. I read the last few pages...if I track down the entire article on Rolling Stone's website I'll read it in more detail.


    Essentially, it seems to claim that because Goldman does well trading in pretty much every market they enter, they would also outsmart a lot of other investors by trading carbon credits. Besides the fact that the article works under the presumption that smart trading is somehow immoral, I must have missed the author's main point.

    When you say "exploited", do you mean the fact that someone is going to make money by trading?

Similar Threads

  1. NBA Leastern Conf just got a bit more interesting
    By HobbesAB in forum General Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-10-2004, 06:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •