If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle turning the world to desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on yet another soda tax.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “If All You See…”

  1. JGlanton says:

    All I see is a 1960 Chevy truck that should be confiscated by the authorities for not having a full set of pollution control equipment.

    Here she is after her truck has been towed for crushing:

    http://cdn.dragzine.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/mercedes-terrell-and-a-1960-c10/babe-month-mercedes-terrell47.jpg

  2. Casey says:

    I was gonna say that photo is a towfer; I was conflicted between saying “man, a hawt chick!” and “Man, look at that classic truck!”

  3. Jeffery says:

    What’s the deal with white men? Every day the media ignores another mass shooting by not-a-Muslim.

    Randy Stair killed three in rural PA yesterday before killing himself. His friends and relatives knew of his religious rants and raves and didn’t notify authorities. Would revoking the citizenship and deporting a few of his “community” make other white christians wake up to this growing menace? Or would that only work on Muslims?

    http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/randy-stair-weis-market-shooting-shooter-tunkhannock-pennsylvania-victims-photos-facebook/

    Jeremy Christian – stabbed 2
    John Neumann – shot 5
    Jeremy Patterson – shot 2
    Randy Stair – shot 3

    Why have white guys suddenly gone nuts? Has trump released your inner demons? Are you realizing that trump lied to you and is not taking you to the land of milk and honey?

    Can you imagine the media shit show if 4 Muslims had committed mass killings the past couple of weeks? You white guys are lucky the media gives you a free pass.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Can you imagine the media shit show if 4 Muslims had committed mass killings the past couple of weeks?

      What is this “if”, little dumbass?

  4. Jeffery says:

    When market interactions generate negative externalities there exist a few options for “fixing” the market. The offending activity can be banned outright (e.g., heroin, methamphetamine, prostitution, chlorofluorocarbons), taxed (cigarettes, acid rain production, alcohol) and/or regulated (“seller” made to pay for remediation, age limits on alcohol/tobacco sales, catalytic converters etc).

    The consumption of sugary drinks contribute to obesity and host of medical issues that end up being paid for one way or another, i.e., increased medical expenses, poor health, premature death.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    When market interactions generate negative externalities there exist a few options for “fixing” the market.

    The problem with this statement is that it is the government that created the problem of “negative externalities” to begin with. It used to be that people were rewarded to staying fit and eating healthy. Now, as seen above, since we all have to pay for the choices others make, the government has to try and take over the market of drinks.

    Furthermore, since the tax on sodas affects the poor and minorities more than it does others (according to a study by the Seattle Mayor’s Office,) the Mayor proposed taxing all drinks as to not create a “disparate impact” on people with lower incomes and minorities.

    In order to help people get away from soda because it is a “bad decision” the individual makes, Seattle’s Mayor wanted to punish and tax those who weren’t making that “bad decision.”

    (And of course, sugary coffee drinks like Starbucks sells were exempted from the tax.)

    It is typical of liberal thinking to create a problem, tax everything for the “general benefit” and yet still punish those who aren’t making the choices liberals say are bad.

    There is no logic in the liberal way of thinking.

  6. Jeffery says:

    The problem with this statement is that it is the government that created the problem of “negative externalities” to begin with.

    It’s your contention that people smoke and drink too much pop because Medicare/Medicaid? From the time health insurance was “invented” we’ve all paid for the bad choices and bad luck of others. Do you think we should ban health insurance?

    • gitarcarver says:

      It’s your contention that people smoke and drink too much pop because Medicare/Medicaid?

      Not at all. It’s my contention that your statement that we all pay for people who smoke and drink comes from the fact that the government demands we cover everything regardless of choices people make.

      In the original days of doctors and health care, people were rewarded for “good choices” and penalized for “bad choices.”

      Do you think we should ban health insurance?

      Do you think that people should subsidize the bad health choices that others make? That people should be penalized and have money stolen by the government to pay for those who don’t make the very choices the government wants them to make?

      Do you think that the idea of freedom comes with responsibility? Or should government control every part of our lives and charge us even when we make the choices they want us to make?

  7. Jeffery says:

    Do you seriously think health insurance has caused unhealthy behaviors? Why has tobacco use plummeted as government “interference” in healthcare has increased? Why has driving an auto become safer?

    Do you seriously believe any person thinks today, “I’m not going to exercise because the government will pick up the tab for my heart disease”?, or conversely, did a teenager 50 years ago ever consider, “I’m not going to smoke because that expensive lung cancer treatment will fall on me!”

    • gitarcarver says:

      Do you seriously think health insurance has caused unhealthy behaviors?

      Do you seriously think that people who do not lead a healthy lifestyle (the very lifestyle the government wants to mandate) should have others pay for their unhealthy choices?

      Why has tobacco use plummeted as government “interference” in healthcare has increased?

      Thanks for making the point. Tell me why as a non-smoker I should have to pay for the increase in costs that smokers bring to the table?

      Why has driving an auto become safer?

      Once again, you make my point. Autos have become safer as manufacturers have made safer cars. The cost of insuring drivers in safer cars is less than that of unsafer cars. The car insurance industry rewards people for making decisions that cost the companies less money. The same is true for home owner’s insurance. A home with an alarm system and a sprinkler system costs less to insure than a similar home without those features.Yet with health care, people who make healthy choices are not rewarded with lower costs and people that make unhealthy choices do not incur higher costs.

      Do you think that a person who has multiple driving infractions should not pay more in insurance rates than those who have perfect records? Should a person who has been caught intoxicated behind the wheel pay the same rate as someone who never has been arrested, much less convicted for a DUI?

      Why is it in every other insurance industry are people who make safer and better choices paying less, but with healthcare, because of government mandates, they pay the same as those who do not?

      Why are you advocating rewarding those who make bad health choices to the point of increased costs to people who make good choices?

      Do you seriously believe any person thinks today, “I’m not going to exercise because the government will pick up the tab for my heart disease”?,

      No, but do I think that there are people who said in the past “I will exercise because my costs of health insurance will be lower” did exist.

      “I’m not going to smoke because that expensive lung cancer treatment will fall on me!”

      Yes, as a matter of fact I do. I am one of those people who thought just that. Most of my friends thought that as well.

      Do you think that someone who decides to use illegal drugs should have their treatment paid for by someone who chose not to use those drugs and not become addicted?

      There is a difference in ideology between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that there are no bad choices and even it there were, everyone should be forced to pay for those choices. Conservatives believe in personal freedoms and responsibility.

  8. Jeffery says:

    But you are correct that some government actions contribute to societal health problems, to wit:

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-opiod-crisis-another-example-of-the-high-cost-of-protectionism

    Government-granted patent monopolies allow the companies to sell their drugs for twenty, thirty, or forty times the free market price. … As a result of this protectionism, the country will spend more than $440 billion (around $1,300 per person) for drugs that would likely sell for less than $80 billion in a free market. In addition, this protectionism gives drug companies incentive to lie about the effectiveness and safety of their drugs, as we clearly see in the case of opiod painkillers.

    • gitarcarver says:

      The CEPR is a left leaning “think tank” which advocates for the same thing that you do – robbing people of their property.

      As usual for those on the left, while the CEPR is demanding the drug manufacturers lose their limited patent protection (in terms of years) they sell books which have a intellectual property copyright protection of 30 – 50 years, (depending on the work)

      If the CEPR believes that intellectual property should not exist, why don’t they act in that manner themselves?

      Furthermore, as you seem to believe in the CEPR’s position when it comes to drugs, why don’t you vacate the patents you hold on drugs, or at least walk away from the “dirty money” such patent protection affords you?

      We both know the answer to that: liberals won’t do what they demand others do.

  9. Jeffery says:

    You M.O., once cornered, is to attack the messengers. I support restructuring the patent and copyright system, as does Dean Baker. Do you?

    As you know, even as an inventor, I do not own any patents. You do realize that the benefits of patents, especially in tech and pharma, accrue to the owners, not the inventors.

    Dean Baker’s books are free on the internet, BTW.

    But enough of your dodges and distractions. This is what you do when your initial premise, in this case, that medical insurance makes people fat, is exposed as nonsense.

    Buh bye.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8086 access attempts in the last 7 days.