ClimbingPanther

there is only one beer

exactly. "You must give up your excesses becuase I said so, but I earned the right to live excessively!" Yes, archy, everyone has the right to make different decisions about what's acceptible in this country, but he's saying "do as I say, not as I do."

Oh yeah, the title of the article is: Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs What, they didn't start from nothing and work hard for their SUV's? What a poser.

Sounds like something a good Republican would say. I'm sure it's all a cozy 72 degrees all year long too. What a model citizen. The world would truly be a better place if everyone lived as extravagantly as their wallet allowed. Thanks, Mr. Edwards, for being a leader and showing the world what America is all about. Anybody can squander resources like a true American if they just work for it. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/29/edwards.kucinich.ap/index.html To be fair though, I would be real curious to know what nobody's talking about... how do all the other candidates live? How big is McCain's house? Clinton's vehicle? Romney's extended Mormon family?

France? Really? You do realize that you have to have a big stick up your butt to live in France, right?

Yeah, and Weezer too!

Maybe not overly used, but it deserves to be... __________________________________________________ Edited by Dick Butkus (yesterday at 10:25 PM ) OK, I've had enough of this thread

Dude! That was the biggest glut of drool-worthy pics I've seen in a long time.

Only in Utah

but hey, at least you could get nominated for a Darwin award! my glass is half-full.

was that a joke?

[font:Comic Sans MS]WHY DID YOU SQUABBLERS HAVE TO RUIN THIS IMPORTANT THREAD??? [/font]

while we're discussing issues related to the energy efficiency of producing corn organically or not, let's have a show of hands for who loves David Hasselhoff

OK, so for animals that may be true, but we're not talking about animals for fuel. I've actually DONE some crop work on an organic farm and I can promise you the yield is lower and manpower way higher than if they'd just bought a bottle of pesticide.

I don't think that was Dru's point, and he does have an argument. Half the yield means twice the cleared land required to produce it which means we leave a bigger footprint. The savings in fuel come with a huge spike in manpower. It's not a very viable alternative, even if it truly is an attractive option from the standpoint of the energy efficiency equation.

With all the talk about industrial carbon caps and rationing, why is it crazy to talk about private caps?

:lmao: :lmao: is it really that crazy? why? curtails the practice of commuting from LA-San Diego and other ridiculous uses of fuel while allowing a reasonable amount of use for everyday needs of people of all economic standing.

Government should and must play a central role. City planning is a huge part of overdependence on fuel. Our country is built with cheap fuel in mind. Jacking up prices will just cause recession because there's no viable alternatives at this point. We need alternatives before we price oil out of existence. Maybe we should look at fuel rationing without price increase. Keeps consumption low without screwing the poor.

I'm in favor of not using price as the sword to cut emissions.

increasing taxes & inflating prices for fuel is a tax on the poor. fuel makes up a huge piece of their pie, and the rich don't care because they'll have money to do what they want anyway.

how do YOU know that none of us, in fact, hasn't ever said anything stupid?

why is this not a 5-star thread?

Since CO2 is, this very minute, pouring out of your mouth, dirtbagathlete, I suggest you save our future by cutting down on your emissions. skull

Look below to find your answer. kevbone, that was actually the funniest post I've seen in a long time. well done, lad!

Yeth pleathe!