Auto Dealers Call on Biden to Hit Brakes on Unrealistic, Unachievable Electric Vehicles Mandate

I know I don't. I never said anything to doubt that.

THAT is an opinion that is not based on reality. MY opinion on the subject of fossil or electric is based on facts and science. YOU have made the emotional argument by falsely claim an airport fire was caused by lithium-ion batteries burning uncontrollably. That is false. You say it isn't. I've told you that the articles I have read made no mention, zero of lithium-ion batteries having anything to do with the fire. You have done nothing to prove that I'm wrong.

 

They why the intellectual dishonesty?

Read more from more sources.

I decline. I don't need to prove anything.

I heard your challenge the first seven times you made it.

I don't have anything to prove. You can reject what I say if you want you can be ignorant of reality if you want it's not my concern.

attempting to goad me into providing you with information you can seek and find yourself is not going to work.

I'm okay with you believing this

maybe try to disconnect emotion from the subject and you won't have to say garbage like this.

Oh dear I'll look bad in front of the green cult. And I so desperately want their approval.

Lol

If you're going to threaten me with losing something make sure it's something of value

I don't value having credibility with you. But thanks.

 

Yes......but you are confused
The government is driving is TRYING to drive this through the EPA CAFE standards with federal subsidies and incentives but they are in no way trying to shut down oil and gas.
Oil and gas companies see the writing on the wall and are changing with the times. It's necessary.

 

I'm sorry for your incompetence, that was the point I was making that you decided to argue against.

first and foremost I don't have to run what I say by you, and your opinion on it is if no value to me

I said what I said because that's what I meant to say.

so what part is fiction, the fire, the fact that EV batteries burn uncontrollably until they have spent all of their fuel, or the fact that electric cars were present in the garage when it was burning?

Yes, the presence of these batteries makes fighting fires difficult to impossible.

The fact that this point is inconvenient to your belief shows more that your belief is false then that I have been dishonest about anything.

 

You really didn't think this one out before you posted it.

 

You made an accurate claim about the batteries which I never denied despite you're continued efforts to say I did. That's a comprehension problem you have and why I dismiss your childish "reality" remarks.
Your totally inaccurate claim, or lie, is the story you gave to make your point. Which I have pointed out repeatedly.

 

If that's your thought, there is no hope for you.

 

Really? I gave a response to every one of his claims. You have come back with nothing. I'm sticking with you both failed.

 

then you misunderstood my point.

I'll make it clear for you yet again. The presence of lithium ion batteries in a structure fire makes fighting the fire far more difficult.

The presence of a substance or an object that burns uncontrollably in a fire complicates the fire.

well it's based on the amount of dunning Kruger effect that I see you displaying

this sentence alone is completely devoid of science. Electric power isn't fuel. The fuel is burned at the power plant and it's fossil fuel.

So electric is fossil.

I still didn't claim that.

If you are going to argue with someone about something know what you are arguing.

I claimed presence of EV batteries made the fire impossible to fight.

Yes your strawman is false. What I actually claimed was not.

I don't care about proving you wrong. I already know I'm right.

 

So? Giving responses doesn't meant they are rational.

Your responses to me are irrational.

Anything to avoid learning.

 

Didn't need to.

 

That is an inane statement meant to make you sound knowledgeable but is completely wrong. An example: Nuclear energy to supply electricity is good. Nuclear energy to destroy a city is bad.
See, not hard.

As the example I just gave shows, I thought you would have known a common sense answer. I won't make that mistake again.

This is posturing on your part.

Oh, who's getting emotional now!
People with your thought process are votes and votes are needed to move forward. The fact that you aren't facing the reality of the situation is both troublesome and irrational.

 

They were facts. Rational or irrational have nothing to do with it.

No, they weren't. You have proven you're inability to grasp facts and have resorted to tired insults. Do better.

You have nothing to teach me.

 

Yeah, you did

 

Your opinion is noted.

Your value judgement is if no value.

If you wish to insult me you should have some more standing.

Opinion noted.

Still you.
I just mocked something you said that had no argumentive value. You got butthurt.

And it must just be because I hate the world that I don't vote against petrochemicals being used as fuel.

Try being more persuasive and less insufferable.

Start with intellectual honesty. Turn down your ego a little bit too that will help.

I'm sorry democracy is such an impediment to what you think should happen but I think that's the point of democracy.

 

I'm perfectly competent and have explained in other posts why you are wrong but you continue to show how you don't comprehend.

But not in the case of the fire you brought into the discussion and why you double down on the issue is irrational.

The fact that electric cars were present in the garage weren't a factor in fighting the fire so what point were you making?

 

then why are you even talking to me about it?

Lonely?

Can't teach the arrogant. Reality has to do that.

I'm sorry you choose the hard way.

 

Sure, if they were burning. They weren't so you have no point which makes your argument irrational.

 

Now you've completely jumped the shark.
Logic and debate are devoid in you comments

 

then why did you have to fabricate a straw man to argue against instead of just understanding my point?

must mean you're bad at this.

and you base this solely on the fact that you didn't see someone mention it in some random article you googled.

You're not arguing against my point

The substance being burned in the fire is always a factor in fighting the fire.

see just above.

 

So it's it your contention that these vehicles were somehow fire proof or did they all drive themselves out before the fire started?

How did these batteries get removed before they burned and where did they go?

 

Wishful thinking.

 

What happens if I don't?

 

Does posting twenty consecutive times makes you right??

 

They're upset that the quota is A: unreachable and thus B: prohibitive for businesses. These same businesses will likely either go out of business or suffer significant financial harm from the government.