Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV owners
to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.

Our government is a parody of itself.

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 17:08:26 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV owners
>> to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.
>>
>> Our government is a parody of itself.
>
> 2 years ago, a watchdog warned the UK government of impending electricity
> shortages due to an increase
> in electric vehicles. So, the UK recently just started talking about
> building a new, large nuclear plant to handle
> demand. That means, in about a DECADE there may be enough electricity to
> meet demand. But for the next
> 10 years...Meanwhile you can BET they'll restrict charging hours, which
> means if you vehicle is out of juice at around 1pm
> in the afternoon, you are s--- out of luck.
>

California built the worst and most heavily fined nuclear plant in America,
of course they built it in Arizona.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 9/2/2022 4:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV owners
> to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.
>
> Our government is a parody of itself.

Because it's not advocating further destruction of the environment? I'm
running out of clever ways to say you're as stupid as a bag of dog shit.

On 9/2/2022 4:14 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 17:08:26 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV owners
>> to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.
>>
>> Our government is a parody of itself.
>
> 2 years ago, a watchdog warned the UK government of impending electricity shortages due to an increase
> in electric vehicles. So, the UK recently just started talking about building a new, large nuclear plant to handle
> demand. That means, in about a DECADE there may be enough electricity to meet demand. But for the next
> 10 years...Meanwhile you can BET they'll restrict charging hours, which means if you vehicle is out of juice at around 1pm
> in the afternoon, you are s--- out of luck.

Are you saying there's someone on the group who gives a shit about the
availability of electric in the UK.

In article
<396499286.683850650.882914.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 17:08:26 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

> >> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV
> >> owners to stop charging their vehicles because of electricity shortages.
> >>
> >> Our government is a parody of itself.
> >
> > 2 years ago, a watchdog warned the UK government of impending electricity
> > shortages due to an increase in electric vehicles. So, the UK recently
> > just started talking about building a new, large nuclear plant to handle
> > demand. That means, in about a DECADE there may be enough electricity to
> > meet demand. But for the next 10 years...Meanwhile you can BET they'll
> > restrict charging hours, which means if you vehicle is out of juice at
> > around 1pm in the afternoon, you are s--- out of luck.
> >
> California built the worst and most heavily fined nuclear plant in America,
> of course they built it in Arizona.

I'm pretty sure we're also still stealing the electricity y'all buy from
Oregon.

In article <4454d8f6-adf6-416b-85cc-ca397094fdaen@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 17:08:26 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:

> > Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV
> > owners to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.
> >
> > Our government is a parody of itself.
>
> 2 years ago, a watchdog warned the UK government of impending electricity
> shortages due to an increase in electric vehicles. So, the UK recently
> just started talking about building a new, large nuclear plant to handle
> demand. That means, in about a DECADE there may be enough electricity to
> meet demand. But for the next 10 years...Meanwhile you can BET they'll
> restrict charging hours, which means if you vehicle is out of juice at
> around 1pm in the afternoon, you are s--- out of luck.

I'm fairly certain the powers that be know this whole EV thing is
unworkable, both from an environmental and practical perspective.
They're just using them as a way of accomplishing the first part of the
plan: getting rid of all the gas-powered vehicles.

After that's accomplished, they'll suddenly 'discover' that the EV is
just as bad for mother Gaia as those old dirty cars were, just in
different ways, so those will also start to be restricted, with the
ultimate goal of ending personal vehicle ownership altogether. Because
nothing has given people more freedom in the last 100 years than being
able to own their car and drive wherever and whenever they want.

For the greater good, you'll slowly be restricted and banned until your
only options will be walking, biking, and public transportation. If you
want to travel anywhere those things don't go, you'll have to apply to
the government for permission to use an EV, with such permits being
rarely granted and extremely expensive when they are. And don't even
think about flying anywhere. Certainly not for anything as frivolous as
a vacation.

This is the plan. It's indisputable that these are the goals. Every
major city, the U.S. government, and the United Nations have published
versions of them. They want to restrict the lives and the movements of
the "average citizen" (note the language that distinguishes between you
and me and those who aren't "average"-- i.e., elite; these restrictions
will not be for them, just for you).

They want to end the suburban lifestyle and individual home ownership
for the vast majority of society. Gavin Newsom has said as much. He has
outright stated that the "individual suburban homeowner model is
unsustainable in California".

So it's no surprise that California is well on its way with this plan,
passing one bill after another every year that attacks the middle class
homeowner from every side-- with the ultimate goal of having everyone
living in tiny boxlike apartments in massive hive-like high-rises, with
everyone assigned a unit within walking distance of their jobs,
preferably in the same building as their job, and never having to (or
being allowed to) travel beyond a mile radius for their whole lives.

Again, these are their stated goals. It's not a conspiracy theory.
They're not even trying to hide it. Sure, it will take a long time to
slowly boil this frog-- they know they can't force it all at once or
people will rebel, which is why we get these little incremental steps
with people only being asked to give up a tiny bit of their freedom and
liberty at a time "for the greater good", of course-- but if you could
live to a hundred years from now, you wouldn't recognize the society
they'll have created. All to "fight climate change" and "save the earth".

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>I'm fairly certain the powers that be know this whole EV thing is
>unworkable, both from an environmental and practical perspective.
>They're just using them as a way of accomplishing the first part of the
>plan: getting rid of all the gas-powered vehicles.

My state has started the process of massively subsidizing their
purchase, which means that they are discouraging public transportation
use. That's more pressure for highway construction which comes from
subsidies collected on motor fuel sales.

It's all cost-shifting, just like pollution is. There has been talk --
it's not yet a Chicago city ordinance -- that off-street parking spaces
will have to e equipped with charging facilities. They aren't even
talking about hooking it up to the tenant's or condo owner's electricity
(which isn't always practical given distance) but the landlord's or
condo association's master electric bill.

Is the residential electrical grid even designed to allow charging of a
significant number of vehicles?

>After that's accomplished, they'll suddenly 'discover' that the EV is
>just as bad for mother Gaia as those old dirty cars were, just in
>different ways, so those will also start to be restricted, with the
>ultimate goal of ending personal vehicle ownership altogether. Because
>nothing has given people more freedom in the last 100 years than being
>able to own their car and drive wherever and whenever they want.

Hold it. You are NOT allowed to say that batteries are full of toxic
metals and therefore must be disposed of carefully in special landfills,
lest they pollute horribly as they break down.

Hold your tongue.

>For the greater good, you'll slowly be restricted and banned until your
>only options will be walking, biking, and public transportation.

C'mon. Give them credit. They will also prove that walking and biking
are bad for the environment too and public transportation rarely
provides enough coverage nor runs enough hours to replace vehicles.

>If you
>want to travel anywhere those things don't go, you'll have to apply to
>the government for permission to use an EV, with such permits being
>rarely granted and extremely expensive when they are. And don't even
>think about flying anywhere. Certainly not for anything as frivolous as
>a vacation.

Just don't leave your cell, I mean your home. It's that simple.

>This is the plan. It's indisputable that these are the goals. Every
>major city, the U.S. government, and the United Nations have published
>versions of them. They want to restrict the lives and the movements of
>the "average citizen" (note the language that distinguishes between you
>and me and those who aren't "average"-- i.e., elite; these restrictions
>will not be for them, just for you).

>They want to end the suburban lifestyle and individual home ownership
>for the vast majority of society. Gavin Newsom has said as much. He has
>outright stated that the "individual suburban homeowner model is
>unsustainable in California".

>So it's no surprise that California is well on its way with this plan,
>passing one bill after another every year that attacks the middle class
>homeowner from every side-- with the ultimate goal of having everyone
>living in tiny boxlike apartments in massive hive-like high-rises, with
>everyone assigned a unit within walking distance of their jobs,
>preferably in the same building as their job, and never having to (or
>being allowed to) travel beyond a mile radius for their whole lives.

>Again, these are their stated goals. It's not a conspiracy theory.
>They're not even trying to hide it. Sure, it will take a long time to
>slowly boil this frog-- they know they can't force it all at once or
>people will rebel, which is why we get these little incremental steps
>with people only being asked to give up a tiny bit of their freedom and
>liberty at a time "for the greater good", of course-- but if you could
>live to a hundred years from now, you wouldn't recognize the society
>they'll have created. All to "fight climate change" and "save the earth".

On 9/3/2022 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <4454d8f6-adf6-416b-85cc-ca397094fdaen@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 17:08:26 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV
>>> owners to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.
>>>
>>> Our government is a parody of itself.
>>
>> 2 years ago, a watchdog warned the UK government of impending electricity
>> shortages due to an increase in electric vehicles. So, the UK recently
>> just started talking about building a new, large nuclear plant to handle
>> demand. That means, in about a DECADE there may be enough electricity to
>> meet demand. But for the next 10 years...Meanwhile you can BET they'll
>> restrict charging hours, which means if you vehicle is out of juice at
>> around 1pm in the afternoon, you are s--- out of luck.
>
> I'm fairly certain

Warning, impending horseshit.

the powers that be know this whole EV thing is
> unworkable, both from an environmental and practical perspective.
> They're just using them as a way of accomplishing the first part of the
> plan: getting rid of all the gas-powered vehicles.

I was right again, pure horseshit. Not one iota of intelligent or
intelligible commentary.

> After that's accomplished, they'll suddenly 'discover' that the EV is
> just as bad for mother Gaia as those old dirty cars were,

Even horseshittier than before. "The EV is worse in some way I can't
explain because I'm spewing horseshit."

just in
> different ways, so those will also start to be restricted, with the
> ultimate goal of ending personal vehicle ownership altogether. Because
> nothing has given people more freedom in the last 100 years than being
> able to own their car and drive wherever and whenever they want.

Cool, you sound just as psychotic as Rich: "The Dems are trying to end
personal vehicle ownership! Because of reasons!"

> For the greater good, you'll slowly be restricted and banned until your
> only options will be walking, biking, and public transportation.

That makes sense from an environmental standpoint, but is obviously
unlikely to happen. I can see why you want gas powered vehicles to
remain: just to see how high gas can go.

Eunuch Derp's further cries for help snipped for brevity. "But but but
muh freedoms!"

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:08:26 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV owners
> to stop charging them because of electricity shortages.
>
> Our government is a parody of itself.

Unless someone drives to Vegas round trip every day a charge should last for 5 days of normal use.

I like spoons!

Drumpft is a sad Nixon parody.

On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 19:07:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>For the greater good, you'll slowly be restricted and banned until your
>>only options will be walking, biking, and public transportation.
>
>C'mon. Give them credit. They will also prove that walking and biking
>are bad for the environment too and public transportation rarely
>provides enough coverage nor runs enough hours to replace vehicles.

I dunno - around here they're calling it "active transportation" and
subsidizing things like "bike share" programs.

Of course if you dont have a cell phone you are cut off from using all
this fine stuff they want you as a taxpayer to subsidize...

On 2022-09-05 05:43:16 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2022 19:07:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For the greater good, you'll slowly be restricted and banned until your
>>> only options will be walking, biking, and public transportation.
>>
>> C'mon. Give them credit. They will also prove that walking and biking
>> are bad for the environment too and public transportation rarely
>> provides enough coverage nor runs enough hours to replace vehicles.
>
> I dunno - around here they're calling it "active transportation" and
> subsidizing things like "bike share" programs.
>
> Of course if you dont have a cell phone you are cut off from using all
> this fine stuff they want you as a taxpayer to subsidize...

These other so-called "travel options" are usually not of any use for
the majority of people. A personal car is simply always going to be far
more efficient form of transport in every way ... unless perhaps you
live, work, shop, etc. nearby and *within* a big city high density
population area that allows for at least reasonably efficient public
transport,

There are also morons calling for public transport to be "free", but
they don't have the brains to realise that it can't actually be free
and the money simply comes from all tax-payers (and by necessity wpould
mean an increase in national or local taxes), whether or not they want
to use public transport.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <396499286.683850650.882914.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 17:08:26 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>> Just days after banning gas-powered cars, California is now advising EV
>>>> owners to stop charging their vehicles because of electricity shortages.
>>>>
>>>> Our government is a parody of itself.
>>>
>>> 2 years ago, a watchdog warned the UK government of impending electricity
>>> shortages due to an increase in electric vehicles. So, the UK recently
>>> just started talking about building a new, large nuclear plant to handle
>>> demand. That means, in about a DECADE there may be enough electricity to
>>> meet demand. But for the next 10 years...Meanwhile you can BET they'll
>>> restrict charging hours, which means if you vehicle is out of juice at
>>> around 1pm in the afternoon, you are s--- out of luck.
>>>
>> California built the worst and most heavily fined nuclear plant in America,
>> of course they built it in Arizona.
>
> I'm pretty sure we're also still stealing the electricity y'all buy from
> Oregon.
>

And our water

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.