MplsBison

There is no such thing as simply "passing on costs to the consumer" like you want to pretend there is. That's because companies don't just increase their prices when their competitors aren't. The companies that invest in processes and methods that emit less carbon into the environment will be rewarded. Those that don't will suffer. Consumers are the ultimate winners in all situations.

Like you care what some old document says. You'll just use any excuse to try to prevent your taxes from being raised. Too bad. I, and others, will out vote you and raise your taxes so that we can pay for these great government programs. Don't like it? Get out.

Every person deserves access to affordable health care. I don't give a s*%t what some document from 300 years ago says. If it no longer makes sense, amend it.

Correct, this is about reducing carbon emissions, which is a problem on it's face. No need to add nonense about global warming to it. Only companies that are emitting excess carbon will see their prices increase. Consumers will naturally flock to green companies whose prices won't increase.

The heritage foundation...now there is a site that is just dripping with credibility! I'm sure they have no agenda in this! LOL! Here's a decent article on some of the compromise going on as the bill passes its way through the congress and senate: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aWrfyhptR.RM

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't read your children bed time stories authored by Ron Paul. Obviously the private sector has done such a bang up job making sure everyone has fair and affordable coverage!

The thread is about carbon emissions, not global warming. The two are not related on this thread. I don't care about practicalities. The legislation is about where we want to be in the future with emissions. You can't get there thinking about what's practical for today. Coal is practical for today. It's not where we want to be. Transitions are hard, but they need to be done...painfully if required. Pulling off a bandaid hurts too.

Global warming is a red herring on this thread. The thread is about carbon emissions, please stay on topic.

It is obviously possible to emit too much, we've set the limit and companies that go above that will pay dearly. Asian goods have to be shipped here which adds costs. Plus those products are often the lowest quality product. If you want something nicer it will be American or European, which will be compliant or they will be increased in price. The bill will stimulate the green economy even more. It will do no such thing as the great depression and any claim that it will is nothing more than a scare tactic.

The for sure thing that should change is that heath provides should never be allowed to deny service to someone with a pre existing condition. I think that probably applies to your case directly.

Plant growth, foreign oil and driving industry to China and India are red herrings. Not sure why you keep trying to resort to distraction methods when talking about this topic? The topic at hand is that US companies are emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere. This legislation will curb that by taxing those who emit too much. If the prices of their goods and services increase, then their customers will leave for companies whose prices do not increase since they are compliant. Good. Let those who won't adapt to greener processes and methods wither and die.

I guess Minnesota will just have to find cleaner sources of energy, then! Energy from coal: no longer welcome in the great state of Minnesota.

Global warming is a red herring. The point of cap/trade is to curb and ultimately eliminate carbon emission. That in itself is a problem that needs to be corrected. Those energy sources that don't pollute, such as gas and solar, will not see any increases in price due to the legislation, thus funneling people to those sources. And the government will receive a ton of money from those sources that do pollute in the mean time. Win-win-win-win legislation!

Good, we need more incentives to stop coal production in ND. I hope it does pass. I'm also sick of this pure bulls**t attitude that if something is good for the country as a whole, but not good for my state individually, I'm going to tell my senator to vote it down! Screw that. State provincialism should not be allowed to derail important, NATIONAL policy. Especially not small states like North Dakota.

He has a very valid point and your personal attack is out of line and completely uncalled for.

I'm willing to bet that the FF at the Qwest is a forgone conclusion on some periodic basis.

The only requirement is that you sponsor X number of sports and possibly a minimum number of total scholarship equivalencies (not sure). There is no such institutional change that you're talking about. The fact that NDSU's transformation coincided with moving the athletics department to DI was not a coincidence, it was done on purpose to market the entire school as a "DI university", but in truth there is no such thing other than the athletics department meets the minimum requirements to be DI (Savannah State, for example).

I was attempting a smarmy remark for him going out of his way to call me "MplsBison fan". Failed attempt at humor, move on.

I figured you'd be like 'WHAT?!'. No I did not play for NDSU, obviously as I'm posting on a message board.

Hardly "the one". Also why do you add "fan"? Do you doubt I played for NDSU?

The credible sources seem to be coming out in favor of UNO joining. I am less skeptical that it could happen now, I am just waiting to see what prizes UNO's negotiating team will be able to bring back from the table.

This quote coming from a guy who would give his left nut to get UNO in the WCHA, since that type of miracle would end world hunger, among other things.

MSUM? Moorhead doesn't play in the WCHA. I know Mankato State does though.

Be interesting to see what UNO's nego team was able to get from the WCHA in terms of the tourny in Omaha, revenue from the tourny, etc.

Huge assumptions on your part that those fewer miles translate into significantly lower costs. What they would save in travel costs would likely be eaten up in lower attandance from WCHA schools. I guess we'll see!