Well that's true, but realistically speaking do you believe someone would create a car that shocks you to make profit?

This is a complicated question. One can be quick to say yes or no but I think we should think about both sides. Without all the wars the United States wouldn't be as prosperous as it is today, the United States have used wars to build a formidable economy by imperializing and forcefully taking resources and land from other countries. This has also led to the United States becoming one of the most feared countries because of their military might (notice how I said feared and not respected) which prompts many countries to comply with the United States demands. On the other hand should a country that holds many internal problems such as its poor education, economic equalities, and high imprisonment rate, invest that much in its military (1.2 trillion I THINK) while other problems burden it. It all depends on how you view things personally I believe the wars were necessary MOST wars played an essential role in the development of the United States. Vietnam War and Korean War not included those couldn't have been more pointless in my opinion.

The creation of electric cars do require fossil fuels, but the overall toxins released into the atmosphere is far less than that of a gasoline car. Come on bud join the electric car side we have fresh air :)

Surely you dont truly believe someone would create a car that would shock the drivers, do you?

With much respect back, if that's what it seemed like I implied to you that wasn't my intention. One sentence can mean a million and one things. A prime example is the Constitution, people read the same words but all get different interpretations. No website needed that was off the top of my head :). My point being is if that's how you interpretated my words, that's not how I meant for them to be interpretated and that wasn't my original intentions. Getting back on topic to the main argument , to clarify the cars would be 10 feet underwater because of the impacts of global warming. To better clarify, global warming is theorized to cause water levels to rise causing most of the planet to be submerged in water which will result in most cars being underwater as well.

What's your reasoning for supporting gasoline cars over electric cars?

Well if people have to build more electric stations that will result in more jobs, so that money being spent wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing especially considering it most likely wouldn't come out of the pockets of those who want to buy a eletric car.

While if that were true, which its not, I would agree with you, but truth is vehicles that run on gasoline far outweigh the carbon produced than electric cars. It is true that the production of electric cars do produce toxin, but to say it outweighs that's of a vehicle that runs on gasoline is nothing but a myth. It has been proven by studies that countries with more electric car actually produce less carbon emissions than those with "regular" cars. (There's no such thing as a regular car buts that's a completely different argument). To further rebuttle your argument you stated "ONE battery puts as much harmful products...into the enviorment as do TEN regular cars that are driven 1000 miles" ten multiplied by 1000 is 10,000 which really isn't a lot of milage for a car I can't remember a day if ever that I saw a car with such a small amount of milage on it. Electric cars aren't perfect but sticking with gasoline cars will solve nothing.

We as humans lack the intelligence to realize the consequences of our action until the consequences knock on our front door. That being said we should switch from petroleum to electric car before the warnings of global warming become reality. What good will any car be if it is 10 feet under water?