Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "The War On Cars | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. If you aren't willing to die for freedom, you will lose it.
    2
  2. "thinking that you're compromising your patriotism if ya don't own your own set of wheels." Did not imply that, just noting that a basic principle of freedom is it's none of your business whether your neighbor does, and it is not the business of government to protect us from ourselves, only (under certain circumstances) from each other.
    2
  3.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  It is the other way around. Public transit is subsidized by revenues from vehicle use tax, fees and other public revenue extracted from auto users.
    1
  4.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  Yes, highways are also funded by the same source, primarily. So?
    1
  5.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  I don't know what "They should be a luxury" means. If you mean common folks should not be allowed to have them, you are an authoritarian elitist.
    1
  6.  @myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466  I see I slightly misunderstood your point, 3 posts up, I thought you were talking about cars, not highways.  "Yes commonfolk can have highways" How gracious of you, master! "but they oughta pay a toll to enter" We have already established that road and vehicle taxes are funding the whole shebang, if the "alternatives" were better, they would be profitable, and not need subsidy. Be careful that you don't kill the source of revenue for your pet projects. Unless your motive is not to provide revenue, but to punish behavior of which you disapprove, in which case you are, again, an authoritarian elitist.
    1
  7.  @willhiggins9563  No, by showing by every available metric and statistic that it never happened.
    1
  8.  @MillzTheAthlete  So, just because a Republican said something happened, it must have happened? Even after it has been proven objectively that it didn't? A man can "confess" to his own sin. He can't "confess" somebody else's. That's an "accusation", in this case, a false one.
    1
  9.  @willhiggins9563  The southerners who GREW UP after the REPUBLICANS passed the civil rights act (look at the roll call vote), didn't grow up racist. Strom Turmond changed parties, the other 200 dixiecrat politicians didn't (and kept being elected as Democrats and their districts stayed Democrat, and they were replaced in their districts after retirement with other Democrats until the '90s when the racists were dying off). If the southern shift to Republican was a result of (non-existent) Republican support for racism, how did we get the young southerners instead of the old (racist) ones? Yes, like that metric.
    1
  10. How does owning a car force you to drive? I walk or ride a bike whenever I want. The only way it restricts your choice is if buying a car means you can't afford a bicycle, not true for most people.
    1
  11. That gets you nowhere.
    1
  12. I never let my car discourage me from walking or biking wherever I want. I agree about the cheaper cars. The testing method of the first emission standards was skewed to flunk the air cooled VW bug in the '70s, which no doubt had lower emissions overall than its larger US V-8 competitors. That is how they outlawed the bug in the 70's. I remember seeing a billboard in Cincinnati advertising a new bug for $1800. They were still sold internationally, and like with other cars, the tooling was sold in turn to Mexico and South America. The last bugs were made only a few years ago in South America. Much of the automobile regulation is to protect established automakers against competition from automobile startups. A "street legal" auto is such a complicated construct that only a megacorp can tool for it.
    1
  13. There is nothing wrong with developing things, but subsidizing or requiring them is dependably bad.
    1
  14. How is on street parking FEDERALLY subsidized?
    1
  15. When the country was founded, the steam engine had not been invented.
    1
  16. Lithium is not a rare earth element. The rare earths in electric cars are in the motors.
    1
  17. " It will take the freedom of your kids to breath in the future." Actually, smog in US cities used to be worse than it is now. The answer to any technological problem is newer and better technology. "But once there is CO2 in the air, its there. And there's nothing you can do to change that anymore." You need to learn about the carbon cycle. It is homeostatic. In most well watered areas lack of CO2 is the limiting factor in the rate of photosynthesis. More CO2, means more photosynthesis, faster plant growth, a faster rate of removing CO2. There is nothing you need to do about it. About destroying our planet. According the projections the same alarmists were making in the 1980s, the planet should have been destroyed around 2000. According to the projections alarmists were making around 2000, we should have been destroyed by now. Being a good climate change alarmist, I'm sure you have a copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". His claims of disaster have come due, but not come true. The ability of a scientific theory to make predictions is supposed to be a TEST of its validity, you know, in REAL science. How many times does a scientific theory's claims have to be falsified by events before even the most fervent believers must finally admit they're busted?
    1
  18. Bye!
    1
  19. Electric cars use rare earth elements in the MOTORS.
    1
  20.  @aventineavenue  "why do they need to lie about electric cars?" Well, it could be a shill for the established auto industry. Or not.
    1
  21.  @aventineavenue  That is Bulverism, rather than evaluating the arguments and checking the facts, you give yourself an excuse for dismissing material whose conclusion you don't like prior to consideration. Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis: You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century. Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error. [end quote]
    1
  22. " we should have cars that run on water by now (the tech is used in our submarines to supply them with oxygen)" Submarines use electrolysis to extract oxygen from seawater, the power for this process and the desalination units that make the fresh water comes from the fission reactor in the back. Electrolysis is not a power source, it is a process that consumes power.
    1