tazinib1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 So the Dallas cab drivers are on strike (yes during SB week) because of a "front of the line" privilege given to natural gas powered taxi's. Please tell me why this is an issue for the NAACP??? Seriously...I don't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 yea! natural gas! the most efficient and clean burning hydrocarbon fuel on earth! you want cheaper driving fuel costs?, go natural gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 So the Dallas cab drivers are on strike (yes during SB week) because of a "front of the line" privilege given to natural gas powered taxi's. Please tell me why this is an issue for the NAACP??? Seriously...I don't understand. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the NAACP needs to continually find ways to make itself relevant so that it doesn't disappear into obscurity. In order to do this it finds ways to inject race into issues that have absolutely nothing to do with race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the NAACP needs to continually find ways to make itself relevant so that it doesn't disappear into obscurity. In order to do this it finds ways to inject race into issues that have absolutely nothing to do with race. As noted in the item below, Juanita Wallace, president of the Dallas chapter of the NAACP, was here at Dallas City Hall earlier speaking on behalf of striking cabdrivers. She said the City Council's vote to let CNG cars go to the head of the line is discriminatory. All of the more than 150 cab drivers who came to City Hall today were black. They said the head-of-the-line rule is driving them out of business and preventing them from feeding their families. "If you realize that what you voted for is killing a whole bunch of people, why don't you go back to the table and look at that vote and rescind it," Wallace said. She reminded council members that election season is coming. "We will help our voters understand that you are heartless," Wallace said. Ok I'm still confused. Yellow Submarine does this have to do with RACE? And she's trying to strong arm the City Council with threats of election votes? Black people cannot drive CNG vehicles or something???? What the hell is going on here? Edited February 5, 2011 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Ok I'm still confused. Yellow Submarine does this have to do with RACE? And she's trying to strong arm the City Council with threats of election votes? Black people cannot drive CNG vehicles or something???? What the hell is going on here? Many of the people being adversely affected by the law are black that is why the NAACP is involved. Black people can drive CNG vehicles but it cost about 15K to convert a car from regular gas to CNG. Cab drivers don't make that much money to begin with so I'm thinking that the 15K price tag is out of reach for most of them. This law doesn't just affect blacks but all the independent cab drivers that can't afford the conversion while giving an unfair competitive advantage to the larger corporate run cab companies that can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Many of the people being adversely affected by the law are black that is why the NAACP is involved. Black people can drive CNG vehicles but it cost about 15K to convert a car from regular gas to CNG. Cab drivers don't make that much money to begin with so I'm thinking that the 15K price tag is out of reach for most of them. This law doesn't just affect blacks but all the independent cab drivers that can't afford the conversion while giving an unfair competitive advantage to the larger corporate run cab companies that can. So now it is race and the evil big companies...really? I am not buying. The NAACP sees money and they are going after it. Is it cheaper for a corporation to convert to natural gas then an individual? If a Corporation can convert and be profitable so can an individual. It seems to me the 30% savings in monthly fuel cost would more then carry a 4-6 year year loan on the up fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 So now it is race and the evil big companies...really? I am not buying. The NAACP sees money and they are going after it. Is it cheaper for a corporation to convert to natural gas then an individual? If a Corporation can convert and be profitable so can an individual. It seems to me the 30% savings in monthly fuel cost would more then carry a 4-6 year year loan on the up fit. I don't think it's about race or evil big companies. I do think this situation fits nicely under the "big government run amok" umbrella? Laws being passed that hurt small businesses. Laws being passed to try and force businesses to comply with environmental policies. You are against those things aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I don't think it's about race or evil big companies. I do think this situation fits nicely under the "big government run amok" umbrella? Laws being passed that hurt small businesses. Laws being passed to try and force businesses to comply with environmental policies. You are against those things aren't you? very much so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Obviuosly, the NAACP is just latching on to the teet, but this is a perfect example of corporate favortism, with the government sticking their noses where they don't belong. It is not a race issue, but certainly a class issue. The NCAAP is able to make a claim about it, because it's similar to their long-standing view that those with the means restrict those without the means through statutes and policies like this.... In many cases, that claim is overstated nowadays, but not in this particular case... So now it is race and the evil big companies...really? I am not buying. The NAACP sees money and they are going after it. Is it cheaper for a corporation to convert to natural gas then an individual? If a Corporation can convert and be profitable so can an individual. It seems to me the 30% savings in monthly fuel cost would more then carry a 4-6 year year loan on the up fit. If it's cheaper, then why even have the incentive to move up the front of the line? The saying goes "everyone is green if it's cheaper", which holds true regardless of this favortism.... And the real issue is NOT that it can save money, it's an issue of fixed costs and capital to get it going, which many cab drivers don't have. If the government should be doing anything, it should be allowing tax credits or something to help make it more affordable, not for them to favor corporations who have just recently decided to stop restricting alternative energy research because it happens to be cost-feasible now. Edited February 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I do think this situation fits nicely under the "big government run amok" umbrella? Laws being passed that hurt small businesses. Laws being passed to try and force businesses to comply with environmental policies. You are against those things aren't you? very much so the government sticking their noses where they don't belong. If the government should be doing anything, it should be allowing tax credits or something to help make it more affordable, not for them to favor corporations who have just recently decided to stop restricting alternative energy research because it happens to be cost-feasible now. You folks do realize this has nothing to do with the Federal government right? It isn't even the State government. It's the city of Dallas. And isn't it a right wing shibboleth that government should be local? Well, this is local. What's more, it's in that bastion of anti-government freedom, Texas. Ironic, no? ETA: In my experience, the worst rule-making bodies for total pettiness are local. Edited February 6, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 You folks do realize this has nothing to do with the Federal government right? It isn't even the State government. It's the city of Dallas. And isn't it a right wing shibboleth that government should be local? Well, this is local. What's more, it's in that bastion of anti-government freedom, Texas. Ironic, no? ETA: In my experience, the worst rule-making bodies for total pettiness are local. I must admit I was being a bit facetious myself with the whole "big government run amok" thing. The truth is my main issue with the law is because it hurts the little guy (regardless of race). I just couldn't understand why more people weren't against it when you consider that the whole situation could be framed in a way that fits so nicely with many of the talking points from the right: government over reach, forced environmental compliance, etc. You're right, there is a lot of irony in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the NAACP needs to continually find ways to make itself relevant so that it doesn't disappear into obscurity. In order to do this it finds ways to inject race into issues that have absolutely nothing to do with race. Wow somebody gets it. Doesn't matter though. Despite being ironically dealt a blow when Obama was elected, the race card is still all-powerful. Have to admit there is at least a little entertainment value in the NAACP latching onto the "front of the line" bit. Surprised they haven't brought up Rosa Parks as an analogy, lol. America, what a country! fn racists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 You folks do realize this has nothing to do with the Federal government right? It isn't even the State government. It's the city of Dallas. And isn't it a right wing shibboleth that government should be local? Well, this is local. What's more, it's in that bastion of anti-government freedom, Texas. Ironic, no? ETA: In my experience, the worst rule-making bodies for total pettiness are local. Does it matter if it is Federal, State or Local? I do not think anyone cares the level. What is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Does it matter if it is Federal, State or Local? I do not think anyone cares the level. What is your point? Of course it matters when you're talking about "big government". All that shouting and screaming about big government is aimed at the Federal government. Does Dallas City qualify as "big government"? Or have you just run your mouth without thinking again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 lol - Big Government has nothing to do with the level or literal size of the government... "Without thinking again" instant classic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 lol - Big Government has nothing to do with the level or literal size of the government... "Without thinking again" instant classic.... What are you talking about? Ursula never reacts to a post with nothing but emotion and without clearly thinking about his response. Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 lol - Big Government has nothing to do with the level or literal size of the government... "Without thinking again" instant classic.... So what does big government pertain to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 So what does big government pertain to? Seriously? Maybe it is time your start reading more books. No more newspaper, magazine or Internet articles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Seriously? Maybe it is time your start reading more books. No more newspaper, magazine or Internet articles... No, come on, you tell me. Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 No, come on, you tell me. Why not? Teach a man to fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 So what does big government pertain to? It's not the literal size of the government body involved, it's the actions that body is taking. My local city council could be considered "big" government if they decide to start making rules where they don't need to be sticking their noses. On the other hand, it's fun to pick on the federal government right around tax season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It's not the literal size of the government body involved, it's the actions that body is taking. My local city council could be considered "big" government if they decide to start making rules where they don't need to be sticking their noses. This! And the city of Dallas is notorious for making bad decisions like this. One of the reasons I have no desire to live in Dallas. Still, if the people of Dallas reject this, they can get it changed a lot easier than they could if this was a federal mandate. If the people of Dallas don't have a problem with it, then it that is their deal, and it isn't affecting the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It's not the literal size of the government body involved, it's the actions that body is taking. My local city council could be considered "big" government if they decide to start making rules where they don't need to be sticking their noses. +1 The word "government" here is used as an umbrella term to describe the "big government/big business" actions at all levels... Of course we realize it's different, but when you have bailouts going on at the federal level, all the way down to favortism at local levels, then no, I don't feel the need to make the distinction... Would it be more appropriate to say it's more about big business in the guise of idealism, rather than big government, because that was all my point was.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It's not the literal size of the government body involved, it's the actions that body is taking. My local city council could be considered "big" government if they decide to start making rules where they don't need to be sticking their noses. Ah good. Now we're getting somewhere. Clearly Grimm74 either had no idea or wasn't willing to engage in discussion for whatever reason. So...........how is "making rules where they don't need to be sticking their noses" defined? In this case it's an attempt to promote environmentally friendly vehicles (the method used can be debated but that's what it is). How about setting rules on emissions from factory chimneys? Is that a government issue? What about water purity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Ah good. Now we're getting somewhere. Clearly Grimm74 either had no idea or wasn't willing to engage in discussion for whatever reason. So...........how is "making rules where they don't need to be sticking their noses" defined? In this case it's an attempt to promote environmentally friendly vehicles (the method used can be debated but that's what it is). How about setting rules on emissions from factory chimneys? Is that a government issue? What about water purity? Dude, you seem like you're normally a pretty level-headed guy, so is this a fishing trip? Setting environmental regulations for the greater good of the environment is completely different than favortism to those with the means to make more money. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what's taking place here. If it is a threat to public safety, such as a toxic water supply, then yes, that's maybe where the government should be sticking their noses; If they want to create tax credits for those who reduce their emmissions, I don't have a huge issue with that either (other than economic implications and stupid ways they've done it such as "cash for clunkers"); But this is 100% different to give customer priority to someone for something that has nothing to do with their customer base. So why would they do this if it's so clearly discriminatory to the little guy? That's where I have to believe it's a sheisty back-door deal, which again falls into the government overstepping their bounds in favor of big business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.