NationStates Jolt Archive

I say these tree hugging freaks have control the U.N. for too long , let us have our polluting cars back if you want to create hydrogen cars then you can do it out of your own pocket.

Ah....now post the text of the repeal for us to look at, if you have written one. And if you haven't written one, do you expect someone else to do it for you?

Nope I got it
If my people want to pollute the damned air let them do so ,I say take the money you use here to help you make your own form of power instead of using it for this horrible idea of a car. These tree hugging hippies wont give you a job but the "polluting" companies will.Not only does repealing this create new jobs, but what if this plan goes wrong what will these people say " oops , oh well it wasnt our money" If you want to research this do it out of your own pocket .
Good day to all.

Well, I'll try and give your brief and to the point repeal my review.

If my people want to pollute the damned air let them do so, I say take the money you use here to help you make your own form of power instead of using it for this horrible idea of a car.

But the UN has never been about letting people do waht they want- that's the whole national sovereingty(damn my lousy spelling) debate.

These tree hugging hippies wont give you a job but the "polluting" companies will.

Don't use adhominem arguments to justify a point.

If the 'polluting' companies keep going, there might well not be an Earth we can live on. Why do jobs have to be got with "polluting" companies (sic)? Why not in recycling plants or in factories building hydrogen cars?

Not only does repealing this create new jobs, but what if this plan goes wrong what will these people say " oops , oh well it wasnt our money"

But it creates new jobs anyway, see above. Who are 'these people' then? You are a member nation, as are many of us, so who are these people? And every UN project is supported by member nations, as far as I can tell, financially.

If you want to research this do it out of your own pocket .
Good day to all.

I'd prefer to share the cost and share the findings, thanks very much.

Basically, this repeal, as it stands, will never reach the voting stage, and I doubt it will get anywhere near. It needs to be longer, more detailed, supported by welll thought arguments rather than blind flailing stabs at invisible people and 'tree hugging hippies' (sic).

As much as I hate the Hydrogen Powered Vehicles resolution, I find Makatoto has said exactly why I won't support it.

Please, Zota2, please write it up as a serious proposal. We can help, if you want feedback or anything.

YGSM also would enthusiastically support a serious repeal proposal that had a chance of passing.

i would say we would be against this one. just remember, it isnt just your country that you are polluting, you are polluting every other nation as well, unless you want to seal your nation in an air-tight bubble

Meh, I probably wouldn't repeal it anyway, but that doesn't mean we can't have a good debate about it anyway. ;)

I dont mind having a debate ,I'm good at debating .

If my people want to pollute the damned air let them do so

It's our air too. By filling a biosphere with pollutants you are infringing not only on the rights of every single sapient being with whom you share that biosphere, but with all of the future sapient beings who will find their quality of life damaged by the problems you are causing now.

These tree hugging hippies wont give you a job but the "polluting" companies will.

And I suppose by tree hugging hippies you mean the people at General Motors who have so far forefronted the research and development of hydrogen powered cars, and I guess General Motors never supplied many jobs now did they? *cough* :rolleyes:

We must encourage research for alternative non-polluting vehicles before the atmosphere becomes the Los Angleles intersection of our nightmares.

HAHAHA I love your enthusiasm! I agree 100% it is time to take back the UN. We should make a resolution out lawing Brown clothes and tie-dye. lol. I wonder if we could get away with banning hippies from Earth. lol Seriously though If you want help or some wordage on drafting a repeal feel free to ask.

DoU

HAHAHA I love your enthusiasm! I agree 100% it is time to take back the UN. We should make a resolution out lawing Brown clothes and tie-dye. lol. I wonder if we could get away with banning hippies from Earth. lol Seriously though If you want help or some wordage on drafting a repeal feel free to ask.

DoU
I agree with you

Lets see GM drops more jobs than it produces yearly , but I wouldnt think a left winged commie like you would think that would they ? Mother Earth has been pushing us around for too long now and now when she wants to stop when we are winning you people stop . I say take over Mars maybe this help a little but guess what it wont do a thing because the poorer countries will polute because it is cheaper!

I read the text of the resolution, and don't understand the problem. In fact, putting money in to hydrogen powered cars would probably create more jobs because it would open up an entire new field of resource collection. Plus, it pollutes less and will reduce the worldwide oil dependence. However, since I'm new to the forum I don't know if I misunderstood anything or not.

Lets see GM drops more jobs than it produces yearly , but I wouldnt think a left winged commie like you would think that would they ? Mother Earth has been pushing us around for too long now and now when she wants to stop when we are winning you people stop . I say take over Mars maybe this help a little but guess what it wont do a thing because the poorer countries will polute because it is cheaper!
Perhaps you could debate without insulting others?
We feel it would help your case greatly.

Lets see GM drops more jobs than it produces yearly ,

hahahah..dammit, I was worried someone would make point of that lol

but I wouldnt think a left winged commie like you would think that would they ?

and for starters, communism is right wing, socialisism if the left wing counterpart your probably looking for, though there very alike in there extremes.

and for starters, communism is right wing, socialisism if the left wing counterpart your probably looking for, though there very alike in there extremes.
No, commuism is quite certainly left-wing. I believe you are getting the authoriarian-libertarian scale and the left-right scale confused, and generalizing authoritarian communism to all communism.

Commies are very very left wing , fashists are very rights wing this is one reason why the nazis and the USSR never got along , besides Hitler wanted to inslave the people of russia.

sorry for the insult but I just couldnt stop myself , ok I am saying this might fail and all these people would be without a job , countries would plug into debt .Lets stick with what we know is right now , if you want to give money to this , do it out of your own pocket , maybe some nations cant afford it .
Polluting will never stop because countries will leave the U.N. so they dont have to do the rules .

Commies are very very left wing , fashists are very rights wing this is one reason why the nazis and the USSR never got along , besides Hitler wanted to inslave the people of russia.
Well, yes he did. But so did Stalin.

I'm pretty sure there was more to that post, but the server took so long to bring up the post window I forgot what it was.

One thing was different Stalin DID inslave the Russia people.

Let's buy a Ford Excursion, that can go as far as 22 miles per gallon!!! What an economy to go to the street corner to buy a newspaper!!

Explosive']fuck you mother fuckers who whant to get rid of hydrogen cars
Please refrain from attacking others like that, as I am fairly sure it is against forum rules.
OF course, I am not a moderator, so what I say is in no way definitive.

Explosive']fuck you mother fuckers who whant to get rid of hydrogen cars because cs cars would kill us all eventually. plus hydrogen is more explosive than gas making cars with the same engine as the gas cars have more power. its cheaper to produce if produced through electrolosis inwhich you just need to run an electric current through water. plus a car the runs on hydrogen if built correctly will never have to have its fuel tank refilled unless the vehcle got into an accident. besides considering how much we use gas now and the fact that its is being used more and more each year will only give us about 30-50 years of gas if not less.

1. Explitives used like that are a good way to get banned.

2. We've had this arguement already. At current gas consumption, a noticeable drop in the world's ocean levels would result.

3. We still have no reliable data as to how much environmental damage that would result in, but all guesses make gasoline look nonpolluting by comparison. Hell, all guesses make being bombed back to the stoneage by nukes look nondamaging by comparison.

4. Actually, the world has at least a century of gas left. The problem is that the majority of it is concentrated in unstable regions and the largest sources will probably require 75 years to get access to.

5. Converting, right now, to hydrogen could take as long as 75-100 years.

All of the above are real-world based. If you wish to see where I am getting it from, look up the past discussions of the hydrogen issue.

Ok how do I delete that message , and if I cant how can I turn that guy in ...
We were having a nice debate and this moron comes in starts cursing, I wish that guy's father didnt break the condom

Explosive']fuck you mother fuckers who whant to get rid of hydrogen cars because cs cars would kill us all eventually. plus hydrogen is more explosive than gas making cars with the same engine as the gas cars have more power. its cheaper to produce if produced through electrolosis inwhich you just need to run an electric current through water. plus a car the runs on hydrogen if built correctly will never have to have its fuel tank refilled unless the vehcle got into an accident. besides considering how much we use gas now and the fact that its is being used more and more each year will only give us about 30-50 years of gas if not less.

Ok besides your vulgar language you need to get you facts straight
hydrogen cars don't make eplosions and the electrolosis isn't what gives the car its punch
you need lots of hydrogen for hydrogen cars and that is very very expensive to get the ammount you need to power a nation running only on hydrogen cars
I'm all up for having fuel efficent and differnt types of cars but the internal combustion engine has been a pricesless tool to the human race for about one hundreds years and not having them is just a blindly optimistic hope.
I think it is a outrage that you would be forced to ride a certain type of car because of the belives of a certain group. Ideally all gasolined powered cars create is CO2 and if we banned everything that created CO2 you would kill nearly all life on the planet.
Hydrogen powered cars arn't as effective as eletric or gasoline powered cars right now, but they do have a place in the world if they could become more powerful, cheaper, and the ability to obtain hydrogen on a mass scale drasitcally increased. But even if that happened they wouldn't be ideal in all situations just like a hybrid eletric gasoline car isn't much differnt from a straight gasoline car on the highway on long road trips with few stops (like semi trucks) but in the stop and go of a place like toyko they get something like twice as many mpgs.

If I complied these things into a proposal (ability to use internal combustion and diesel engines, eletric, and hydrogen cars and not being forced to hydrogen) would you guys support?

Thanks I am happy another person supports me and you can right the repeal or should I ?

I don't really know how to write an appeal, I just joined the un today and nation states this week. What page is the orignal hydrogen powered thing on?

If you really want me to I could make a draft repeal and then get some feedback make some revisions and then see if people will accept.