Seriously, those Red States that went for Bush are taking a major league pounding.
And he's using global warming and the fucking up of the wetlands to do it.
Bastard.
What about all the recent mud slides and forest fires in California? That was a blue state.
And, of course, your comments about "global warming" and the "wetlands" are assumptions of causes, not facts.
Yes, but California's governor is Republican.
Me, I'm just glad the state I live in is all blue baby!
But Louisiana's Governor is a Democrat. And so isn't the Mayor of New Orleans.
Yes and most of the people that were devastated or killed in the storms voted blue......r3x shut the fuck up.
Is he
still in here?
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Is he still in here?
I notice you never post any threads of your own, you seem to troll just looking for an excuse to mock me, when all I did was blame your god for killing people for political reasons.
Have you no shame?
Mock you? If that's what I'm doing here, I'm wasting my time. You don't so much make my job easy as you do it for me. You, r3x, are, and have always been, a parody of yourself. You're the new JQ. The left's Pariah. The trouble is that it's not funny anymore.
Grow up.
By the way, my threads in here - and generally everywhere else too - have been a hell of a lot more productive. A good eighty percent of the threads you've started have been a near total waste of time.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Mock you? If that's what I'm doing here, I'm wasting my time. You don't so much make my job easy as you do it for me. You, r3x, are, and have always been, a parody of yourself. You're the new JQ. The left's Pariah. The trouble is that it's not funny anymore.
Grow up.
you had me at hello
Quote:
the G-man said:
What about all the recent mud slides and forest fires in California? That was a blue state.
And, of course, your comments about "global warming" and the "wetlands" are assumptions of causes, not facts.
Regardless of whether you believe global warming to be an assumption, do you think that all of the pollution Man is causing is a good thing?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Mock you? If that's what I'm doing here, I'm wasting my time. You don't so much make my job easy as you do it for me. You, r3x, are, and have always been, a parody of yourself. You're the new JQ. The left's Pariah. The trouble is that it's not funny anymore.
Grow up.
you had me at hello
Quote:
theory9 said:
Regardless of whether you believe global warming to be an assumption, do you think that all of the pollution Man is causing is a good thing?
No. But that's not the issue. The controversey is whether or not earth can handle us. Not if we do things that effect earth negatively. We do things like that every day--Because we have to.
What a homosexual statement.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
Regardless of whether you believe global warming to be an assumption, do you think that all of the pollution Man is causing is a good thing?
No. But that's not the issue. The controversey is whether or not earth can handle us. Not if we do things that effect earth negatively. We do things like that every day--Because we have to.
you're an idiot.
pollution is caused by greed and a lack of concern for future generations.
the earth is a living thing and any living thing has a limit to what it can handle.
in the last 100 years we've polluted the earth to such a terrible degree that if we don't work to reverse things now, we might not have a planet in another 100 years. but then by that point we'll all be dead so I guess it doesn't matter.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:you're an idiot.
pollution is caused by greed and a lack of concern for future generations.
the earth is a living thing and any living thing has a limit to what it can handle.
in the last 100 years we've polluted the earth to such a terrible degree that if we don't work to reverse things now, we might not have a planet in another 100 years. but then by that point we'll all be dead so I guess it doesn't matter.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, Ray.
If YOU think the earth is that unable to handle human activity, stop contributing to that activity.
Stop using electricity and gas for non-essential uses.
Don't be a consumer. Refuse to buy items that aren't absolutely necessary for your survival.
Think you can, or are willing to, do that?
Or are you all talk?
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:you're an idiot.
pollution is caused by greed and a lack of concern for future generations.
the earth is a living thing and any living thing has a limit to what it can handle.
in the last 100 years we've polluted the earth to such a terrible degree that if we don't work to reverse things now, we might not have a planet in another 100 years. but then by that point we'll all be dead so I guess it doesn't matter.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, Ray.
If YOU think the earth is that unable to handle human activity, stop contributing to that activity.
Stop using electricity and gas for non-essential uses.
Don't be a consumer. Refuse to buy items that aren't absolutely necessary for your survival.
Think you can, or are willing to, do that?
Or are you all talk?
the burden is on corporations. are you honestly telling me they can't make the same product for slightly more by figuring a way to cut out the toxic waste they dump?
corporations are the ones doing the polluting that is truly killing the planet. The ammount of waste I produce times 6 billion isn't the problem, corporate pollution is.
and, for the record, I have never driven a car and never plan to drive a car. i walk/bike/bus where i need to go.
i recycle my goods and have as of yet never dumped a ton of toxic waste into a river.
How much electricity do you waste typing mindless chit chat on a computer?
How many NON-recycable, NONessential products do you buy?
How many of those products come from corporations?
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
What happened to "think globally, act locally", Ray?
Funny thing is, if he was doing what you're suggesting, you'd call him a GADDAN HIPPAY.
I already assume him to be a goddam hippie. I'm just asking him to not be a hypocritical one.
Perhaps we can all agree that pollution causes some degree of a problem. The highly publicized cases of Love Canal NY, Woburn MA, the case dramatized in Erin Brokovich, etc….
All human biologic and productive activities produce waste products. It becomes a problem when the ability of the environment to absorb that waste is exceeded. 1 car on a country road is not a problem. 3 or 4 million of them in a basin subject to inversion layers is. How do we allow the former while preventing the latter is the question.
IMHO it's a problem of property rights and wholly economic in nature. Pollution is an externallity, something which is external to the markets for goods and services and a product of them. It is the nature of the producers to reduce costs, a foundation of the goal of economic efficiency. The environment is a public good, one for which no person real or artificial has property rights. Disposal of wastes are a cost of production and one which producers seek to reduce. The environment is a place waste can be dumped with little or no cost so a rational man will utilize that resource. The result is that a portion of the cost of production is placed on the public without compensation. The price of the good does not reflect it's true cost of production. Remember folks, this is a zero sum game. The cost may not be reflected in the product price, it is realized elsewhere in the community. That maybe in the form of increased birth defects or higher asthma rates or even increased temperature levels (if you don't think heat is a problem, try taking off the heat sinks inside your computer).
The ultimate solution to problems of pollution is to internalize them back in the markets. Market forces combined with policing by the government (think cops protecting our common property) is the easiest way to do this. The right to pollute is a valuable commodity and it belongs to the public. Rather than prohibit activities by individual producers, we can sell them those rights in a market similar to the commodities market. This is already done in the case of coal fired electrical generation plants. Why not all products? Let the invisible hand work it's magic.
Waiting to hear a better idea.
But if the govenrment is selling those rights, is the "invisible hand" really at work?
America will never be a pure capitalist society, so ideas such as pollution credits approach a balance between preserving the enviroment for future generations and allowing corporations to continue generating profit.
Quote:
the G-man said:
But if the govenrment is selling those rights, is the "invisible hand" really at work?
The government enforces our (the publics) rights. Much like the police protect your home from burglers. Pollution rights would be much like other intangible commodities, financial futures for example.
Quote:
the G-man said:
How much electricity do you waste typing mindless chit chat on a computer?
how many civil rights have you suppressed on your computer?
computers don't use that much power, i save more on electricity by monitoring my light bulb usage than monitoring my computer usage.
Quote:
How many NON-recycable, NONessential products do you buy?
as i said before, what i buy and throw out is not the issue really. because an average person (even 6billion) won't destroy the earth.
companies that make the products knowing they're dangerous to nature and then dump their waste in nature are the problem.
Quote:
How many of those products come from corporations?
again, that's not the real issue. that's like saying how i don't like bush so i shouldn't pay taxes.
I have no choice.
Quote:
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
could i be better? yes. but, again, do i pollute the air with driving? no. do i dump waste into our lakes and streams? no.
Quote:
What happened to "think globally, act locally", Ray?
i think you're misplacing the quote. i didn't say that.
i'm far from perfect. i do what i can but don't feel bad about not doing more because i'm not a political activist or a go getter politician/corporate guy.
like i also said, i don't drive. i make the effort the walk and take my bike. an hour walk to work a day and then an hour walk home is a lot of effort to avoid pollution.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
computers don't use that much power, i save more on electricity by monitoring my light bulb usage than monitoring my computer usage.
Every little bit helps.
Quote:
as i said before, what i buy and throw out is not the issue really. because an average person (even 6billion) won't destroy the earth.
companies that make the products knowing they're dangerous to nature and then dump their waste in nature are the problem.
It's the market, Ray. If you patronize those corporations you are sending a message to them that it's okay to do what they do.
Morgan Spurlock's "Supersize Me" may be a flawed documentary, but at least he showed that big corporations, like McDonald's, are susceptable to consumer pressure. Consumers protested the supersized meals and McDonald's modified their menu.
If you think corporations are evil, don't patronize them. Buy only used goods, if necessary. Or make your own.
Quote:
do i dump waste into our lakes and streams? no.
You neither shit nor piss? Wow. Amazing. How long have you been holding it all in? That might explain you odd mental state.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
do i dump waste into our lakes and streams? no.
You neither shit nor piss? Wow. Amazing. How long have you been holding it all in? That might explain you odd mental state.
any shit and piss i put in our precious lakes and streams is not the same as dumping volatile chemicals into bambi's mouth.
god, you are such a cunt.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I concur!
But do you agree?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:any shit and piss i put in our precious lakes and streams is not the same as dumping volatile chemicals into bambi's mouth.
First off, the chemical composition of urine includes creatinine, sodium, potassium, chloride and acid.
Furthermore, as noted here, "a community's fecal matter carries all the diseases in that population...London's cholera epidemics were often centered upon just one or two public wells that were found to be contaminated by sewage leaking into them."
Therefore, every time you take a leak or a dump you, my friend, are causing pollution.
Finally, show me one example of one corporation going out into the wilderness, grabbing a deer, and shoving a batch of volatile chemicals into its mouth.
If that's what you think corporations do, then how can you, in good conscience, support them through your purchases.
As noted before, Ray, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:any shit and piss i put in our precious lakes and streams is not the same as dumping volatile chemicals into bambi's mouth.
First off, the chemical composition of urine includes creatinine, sodium, potassium, chloride and acid.
Furthermore, as noted here, "a community's fecal matter carries all the diseases in that population...London's cholera epidemics were often centered upon just one or two public wells that were found to be contaminated by sewage leaking into them."
Therefore, every time you take a leak or a dump you, my friend, are causing pollution.
Finally, show me one example of one corporation going out into the wilderness, grabbing a deer, and shoving a batch of volatile chemicals into its mouth.
If that's what you think corporations do, then how can you, in good conscience, support them through your purchases.
As noted before, Ray, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
you're a major douche, i'm just getting that.
i'm not a plague carrier and you're picking at semantics bullshit but i doubt you do shit.
let me ask you: do you drive? if you do (and don't have some disability) then you're doing more damage than i do.
I'm not the one who thinks we're destroying the planet, Ray. You are.
I'm not the one who thinks corporations are evil, Ray. You are.
Therefore, whether or not I drive or whether I patronize those corporations is irrelevant.
The only issue is why are you such a hypocrite, causing all this pollution and supporting corporations that you think are evil.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you're an idiot.
pollution is caused by greed and a lack of concern for future generations.
the earth is a living thing and any living thing has a limit to what it can handle.
in the last 100 years we've polluted the earth to such a terrible degree that if we don't work to reverse things now, we might not have a planet in another 100 years. but then by that point we'll all be dead so I guess it doesn't matter.
That's great r3x. I'm sure you'll do fine without medical supplies, means of transportation, since it's all for earth's fragile state that you're sacrificing those things for.
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm not the one who thinks we're destroying the planet, Ray. You are.
we are. and the big problem now is corporate pollution. my using lightbulbs will not change their practices.
once we get rid of the nest of corporate pollution, then we can really focus on the few stray bees in our own habits.
and again, i don't drive and am conservative (you heard it) when it comes to home electrict usage (lightbulbs, fridge etc.)
Quote:
I'm not the one who thinks corporations are evil, Ray. You are.
then, you're an idiot. remove large multinational corporations and you have smaller corporations who are more accountable.
smaller and more diverse corporations that would need to be honest or risk alienating any buyers.
Quote:
Therefore, whether or not I drive or whether I patronize those corporations is irrelevant.
so you honestly don't think corporations pollute with more volume and devestation than the average man?
you don't think that cars pollute the air and the oil has lead to costly wars that kill millions? 
Quote:
The only issue is why are you such a hypocrite, causing all this pollution and supporting corporations that you think are evil.
and again, if you actually read my earlier posts you would see the tax analogy.
i don't like bush but have no other choice than to pay taxes.
i'm only a hypocrite if i had advocated living only on one of those ecofarms or were dumping toxic waste into nature.
You have plenty of choices regarding your desire (not need) to patronize large corporations, Ray.
Unless you use only what you need, bare minimum, to survive, you are a voluntary consumer. Unlike taxes, the federal government does not REQUIRE you to shop for nonessentials. Those are all voluntary acts on your part.
Furthermore, the government does not require you to buy nonessential products directly from corporations. You could, as noted above, buy used products, which results in no profit to the corporations. You could also buy only natural products.
You're voting with your checkbook, Ray. And every time you buy a nonessential item your vote is FOR corporations.
In other words, you're a corporate stooge, Ray.
Quote:
the G-man said:
You have plenty of choices regarding your desire (not need) to patronize large corporations, Ray.
Unless you use only what you need, bare minimum, to survive, you are a voluntary consumer. Unlike taxes, the federal government does not REQUIRE you to shop for nonessentials. Those are all voluntary acts on your part.
Furthermore, the government does not require you to buy nonessential products directly from corporations. You could, as noted above, buy used products, which results in no profit to the corporations. You could also buy only natural products.
You're voting with your checkbook, Ray. And every time you buy a nonessential item your vote is FOR corporations.
lets see.
i got the cable not owned by rupert murdoch.
i don't eat at big chain fast food.
i smoke imported tobacco with few of the extra chemicals in american shit.
i make my choices here and there. but i don't really buy that much beyond essentials. the only thing you can really say i buy that i don't need is comics from Time-Warner and Marvel (whoever the hell owns them).
you, on the other hand clearly support a man who has allowed corporate greed and less pollution standards for air and water.
so...i guess i'm still the hypocrite because i don't like bush.
Quote:
i got the cable not owned by rupert murdoch.
It's still owned by a corporation. Are you now backing off on the premise that corporations are evil?
Quote:
i smoke imported tobacco with few of the extra chemicals in american shit.
Of all the corporations you want to give a pass to, you pick THE TOBACCO COMPANIES?
Most people put them ahead of even "big oil" on the corporate wrongdoer list.
Quote:
i don't eat at big chain fast food.
Which only proves you understand that to patronize a corporation you disagree with is hypocritical.
And you list doesn't even begin to touch all the other nonessential purchases you probably make in your life: DVDs, CDS (both made from plastic, therefore, fossil fuels), computers, computer printer ink, junk food, sports clothing, action figures, etc. All feeding the corporate beast you claim to hate.
You think Bush should spend millions of our dollars to attack these corporations, but you can't even be bothered to withhold a few measley bucks of your own money from them?
You're a hypocrite, Ray.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
i got the cable not owned by rupert murdoch.
It's still owned by a corporation. Are you now backing off on the premise that corporations are evil?
are you retarded? i know you think you're so clever, but this isn't traffic court i know where the yellow line and road apples are.
i chose cable not owned by a man i find to be loathsome and evil.
Quote:
i smoke imported tobacco with few of the extra chemicals in american shit.
Of all the corporations you want to give a pass to, you pick THE TOBACCO COMPANIES?
Most people put them ahead of even "big oil" on the corporate wrongdoer list.
that's because people are stupid and use smoking as a scapegoat to ignore the thousands of other deadly habits we engage in.
oil causes wars, tobacco companies do not (recently).
Quote:
i don't eat at big chain fast food.
Which only proves you understand that to patronize a corporation you disagree with is hypocritical.
And you list doesn't even begin to touch all the other nonessential purchases you probably make in your life: DVDs, CDS (both made from plastic, therefore, fossil fuels), computers, computer printer ink, junk food, sports clothing, action figures, etc. All feeding the corporate beast you claim to hate.
you're an idiot. i'm saying corporations are bad because of the decisions they make.
you turn that into a love it or leave idea. as if corporations can't possibly do anything to improve themselves.
and in this world, computers are essential. and i don't buy dvds/cds.
Quote:
You think Bush should spend millions of our dollars to attack these corporations, but you can't even be bothered to withhold a few measley bucks of your own money from them?
that's like saying superman shouldn't be expected to fight king kong because one citizen in metropolis won't pluck out one of its toenails.
Quote:
You're a hypocrite, Ray.
you're supposed to be a lawyer. look up the word hypocrite and then post exact quotes where i said we needed to live on ecofarms or else.
Quote:
this isn't traffic court
Ray is making traffic court jokes. That's always a sign he's getting desperate.
Quote:
in this world, computers are essential.
Bullshit. More than forty percent of American households don't own a computer. If they were "essential" that would not be the case. Again, that's a consumerist choice on your part, nothing more.\
Quote:
...superman...King Kong...toenails...blah blah
Your Superman analogy fails. You want Bush to fight corporations but your, yourself, like to feed them. A better analogy would be that you expect Superman to fight King Kong, but still want to be able to feed bananas to the big ape so he's big and strong for the fight.
You put voluntarily put money in the coffers of corporations you think are evil. That money helps those corporations commit the very acts you find evil. That's hypocrisy, in traffic court or any where else.
"My Fellow Americans..."
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm not the one who thinks we're destroying the planet, Ray. You are.
I'm not the one who thinks corporations are evil, Ray. You are.
Therefore, whether or not I drive or whether I patronize those corporations is irrelevant.
The only issue is why are you such a hypocrite, causing all this pollution and supporting corporations that you think are evil.
Herein lies a point that is worth considering on other threads here. For someone who is so uptight about Christians' supposed intolerance, r3x, you quite often tend to hold others to beliefs that you, not they, espouse. Hell yes, I pollute. But you know what? I'm not the one quoting Captain Planet reruns and demanding that everyone respect the environment. I'm perfectly okay with violating the tenets of a belief system I never adhered to.
I think the planet can handle us consuming non-essensital products moderately; it's current mentality of excesses what does the irreparable damage.
I don't think the men in charge of corporations are evil by themselves... but, at some point, when a corporation gets big enough, it "takes a mind of its own" and starts doing anything it can to produce more money. This doesn't happen because of intentional greed (I like to believe), and certainly NOT by necessity in any case... it happens simply out of inertia (by the physic definition of the word). When this happens, it doesn't matter what the long term consequences are: an entire town can be unemployed if the machines are more efficient and less expensive, a lake can be polluted if it costs too much to take the waste somewhere else, etc... If it's making more money, that's all the corporation understands.
If being perceived as a polluting or unfair corporation lowers our income: fine, let's pretend we care. Let's make some news ads. Let's redesign the logo to make it more friendly looking. But do they really care? Of course they don't: they can't. Do corporations stop polluting lakes because it's illegal or because they care? Of course they do it because it's illegal... if it wasn't, every corporation would drop their waste wherever it was more convenient for them. That means that, at the moment they find a way to pollute that isn't technically illegal or that can't be detected easily, it becomes acceptable.
By this same logic, if a corporation can, in any way, get us to buy excessive amounts of shit we don't need, no matter what the long term consequences may be, they do it. If they could get away with mind control, they'd do that to make sure we buy their shit.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
this isn't traffic court
Ray is making traffic court jokes. That's always a sign he's getting desperate.
since when did you start calling me Ray anyway?
Quote:
in this world, computers are essential.
Bullshit. More than forty percent of American households don't own a computer. If they were "essential" that would not be the case. Again, that's a consumerist choice on your part, nothing more.\
that's the dumbest point to argue.
Quote:
...superman...King Kong...toenails...blah blah
Your Superman analogy fails. You want Bush to fight corporations but your, yourself, like to feed them. A better analogy would be that you expect Superman to fight King Kong, but still want to be able to feed bananas to the big ape so he's big and strong for the fight.
You put voluntarily put money in the coffers of corporations you think are evil. That money helps those corporations commit the very acts you find evil. That's hypocrisy, in traffic court or any where else.
smaller corporations are good for spreading items and creating an ease to life but are still more accountable.
large multi-national corporations however are unaccountable and massive polluters on a scale that is dangerous to the planet.
by suggesting that anything short of the government actually taking on corporations will solve anything is ridiculous.
and this is not a partisan issue. government's softness towards corporations as they grew into these beasts is the fault of all parties and has culminated in bush's even laxer standards.
again:
I would only be a hypocrite if i insisted that everyone live on ecofarms or if i said one person using organic everything would change the world.
and finally, as i said i don't drive. and i don't because of the oil companies and the effect of cars on society.
as i said, i scarifice an extra hour both ways to work every day to the environment and to not support one group of corporations.
Quote:
Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:
I think the planet can handle us consuming non-essensital products moderately; it's current mentality of excesses what does the irreparable damage.
Despite the debatable nature of "mentality of excesses", what irreparable damage are you talking about?
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm not the one who thinks we're destroying the planet, Ray. You are.
I'm not the one who thinks corporations are evil, Ray. You are.
Therefore, whether or not I drive or whether I patronize those corporations is irrelevant.
The only issue is why are you such a hypocrite, causing all this pollution and supporting corporations that you think are evil.
Herein lies a point that is worth considering on other threads here. For someone who is so uptight about Christians' supposed intolerance, r3x, you quite often tend to hold others to beliefs that you, not they, espouse. Hell yes, I pollute. But you know what? I'm not the one quoting Captain Planet reruns and demanding that everyone respect the environment. I'm perfectly okay with violating the tenets of a belief system I never adhered to.
what about this place blinds you people to any point a liberal has to say.
you keep repeating some lie until it sticks.
i have placed the blame on the corporation's practices in polluting.
they can make products and still cut down on the horrible polluting.
i don't drive because of oil companies/wars/pollution.
i can sacrifice ease of getting places but i can't sacrifice every facet of my life (and i never suggested anyONE else do so). my whole point has been about corporations' actions (not existance).
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:
I think the planet can handle us consuming non-essensital products moderately; it's current mentality of excesses what does the irreparable damage.
Despite the debatable nature of "mentality of excesses", what irreparable damage are you talking about?
Ozone layer.
remember, us non-chosen ones will have to live here for quite awhile past 2000 when Jesus returns.
Quote:
r3x said:
Bullshit. More than forty percent of American households don't own a computer. If they were "essential" that would not be the case. Again, that's a consumerist choice on your part, nothing more.
that's the dumbest point to argue.
Or is it?
A person doesn't have to own a computer to need one. People who go to the hospitals, stores, and other consumerist establishments need for them to be organized as efficiently as possible. i.e. They need computers.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x said:
Bullshit. More than forty percent of American households don't own a computer. If they were "essential" that would not be the case. Again, that's a consumerist choice on your part, nothing more.
that's the dumbest point to argue.
Or is it?
A person doesn't have to own a computer to need one. People who go to the hospitals, stores, and other consumerist establishments need for them to be organized as efficiently as possible. i.e. They need computers.
you idiot. you misquoted. that was G-man's quote not mine.
You just supported me. 
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Ozone layer.
remember, us non-chosen ones will have to live here for quite awhile past 2000 when Jesus returns.
We all leave when Jesus returns.
There's been nothing to prove the Ozone Layer's as damaged as you assert.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you idiot. you misquoted. that was G-man's quote not mine.
You just supported me.
It's not my fault you don't know how to properly quote someone r3x. Even if I knew it was G-man who said that, I'd disagree with him in that instance.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Ozone layer.
remember, us non-chosen ones will have to live here for quite awhile past 2000 when Jesus returns.
We all leave when Jesus returns.
There's been nothing to prove the Ozone Layer's as damaged as you assert.
I read last week that Polar bears are dying out in the Arctic because the ice is all slushy and they're having trouble getting at the fish.
Also these recent hurricanes are attributed in some part to warming waters in the gulf. unless there's a volcano down there then it's from global warming.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm not the one who thinks we're destroying the planet, Ray. You are.
I'm not the one who thinks corporations are evil, Ray. You are.
Therefore, whether or not I drive or whether I patronize those corporations is irrelevant.
The only issue is why are you such a hypocrite, causing all this pollution and supporting corporations that you think are evil.
Herein lies a point that is worth considering on other threads here. For someone who is so uptight about Christians' supposed intolerance, r3x, you quite often tend to hold others to beliefs that you, not they, espouse. Hell yes, I pollute. But you know what? I'm not the one quoting Captain Planet reruns and demanding that everyone respect the environment. I'm perfectly okay with violating the tenets of a belief system I never adhered to.
what about this place blinds you people to any point a liberal has to say.
you keep repeating some lie until it sticks.
i have placed the blame on the corporation's practices in polluting.
they can make products and still cut down on the horrible polluting.
i don't drive because of oil companies/wars/pollution.
i can sacrifice ease of getting places but i can't sacrifice every facet of my life (and i never suggested anyONE else do so). my whole point has been about corporations' actions (not existance).
What 'lie' am I repeating? I'm simply stating that I'm not as concerned with the difference (???) one consumer's money will make in the output of THE CORPORATE AMERICAN CONSPIRACY™ as you appear to be.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Ozone layer.
remember, us non-chosen ones will have to live here for quite awhile past 2000 when Jesus returns.
We all leave when Jesus returns.
There's been nothing to prove the Ozone Layer's as damaged as you assert.
I read last week that Polar bears are dying out in the Arctic because the ice is all slushy and they're having trouble getting at the fish.
Also these recent hurricanes are attributed in some part to warming waters in the gulf. unless there's a volcano down there then it's from global warming.
And as you've proven irrefutably, there is absolutely no natural cause of global warming. Every hundredth of a degree of climate change is one-hundred-percent attributable to those nasty corporate polluters.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I read last week that Polar bears are dying out in the Arctic because the ice is all slushy and they're having trouble getting at the fish.
Also these recent hurricanes are attributed in some part to warming waters in the gulf. unless there's a volcano down there then it's from global warming.
We all "read things somewhere". Perhaps if you can provide a more accurate citation...
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm not the one who thinks we're destroying the planet, Ray. You are.
I'm not the one who thinks corporations are evil, Ray. You are.
Therefore, whether or not I drive or whether I patronize those corporations is irrelevant.
The only issue is why are you such a hypocrite, causing all this pollution and supporting corporations that you think are evil.
Herein lies a point that is worth considering on other threads here. For someone who is so uptight about Christians' supposed intolerance, r3x, you quite often tend to hold others to beliefs that you, not they, espouse. Hell yes, I pollute. But you know what? I'm not the one quoting Captain Planet reruns and demanding that everyone respect the environment. I'm perfectly okay with violating the tenets of a belief system I never adhered to.
what about this place blinds you people to any point a liberal has to say.
you keep repeating some lie until it sticks.
i have placed the blame on the corporation's practices in polluting.
they can make products and still cut down on the horrible polluting.
i don't drive because of oil companies/wars/pollution.
i can sacrifice ease of getting places but i can't sacrifice every facet of my life (and i never suggested anyONE else do so). my whole point has been about corporations' actions (not existance).
What 'lie' am I repeating? I'm simply stating that I'm not as concerned with the difference (???) one consumer's money will make in the output of THE CORPORATE AMERICAN CONSPIRACY™ as you appear to be.
that's g-man's saying. that i should stop buying anything slightly related to any corporation because my missing dollar will bring them down.
my point (again) is that these corporations pollute in ridiculous volume substances that are horrific poisons.
land fills and trash are one thing, but a stream full of foamy chemicals that disintegrate fish are another.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Despite the debatable nature of "mentality of excesses"
Really? You don't see people buying absurd stuff or replacing shit that still works to ridiculous extents every day? I thought in the US it'd be worse than here!
Quote:
what irreparable damage are you talking about?
Shit the planet can't, uh, "digest" (you know the word I'm looking for), like plastic, batteries, or any kind of toxic waste. I don't know, I'm sure you're more informed about this than I am.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
that's g-man's saying. that i should stop buying anything slightly related to any corporation because my missing dollar will bring them down.
my point (again) is that these corporations pollute in ridiculous volume substances that are horrific poisons.
land fills and trash are one thing, but a stream full of foamy chemicals that disintegrate fish are another.
Quote:
Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Really? You don't see people buying absurd stuff or replacing shit that still works to ridiculous extents every day? I thought in the US it'd be worse than here!
Yeah, but where I am, I'm also seeing a lot of recycling.
Quote:
Shit the planet can't, uh, "digest" (you know the word I'm looking for), like plastic, batteries, or any kind of toxic waste. I don't know, I'm sure you're more informed about this than I am.
I prolly am, which is exactly why I'm asking. No one has been able to provide any real proof that large corporations today are creating a surplus amount of acid rain water, river water, drinking water, disintergrating forests, blah blah blah.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
i have placed the blame on the corporation's practices in polluting.
they can make products and still cut down on the horrible polluting.
i don't drive because of oil companies/wars/pollution.
i can sacrifice ease of getting places but i can't sacrifice every facet of my life (and i never suggested anyONE else do so). my whole point has been about corporations' actions (not existance).
Let's assume for the sake of argument that, in fact, you are taking all actions that you can to reduce pollution.
As you, yourself, argue, further action to reduce pollution would be difficult and costly for you.
Why, therefore, do you assume that actions to reduce pollution are not at all difficult or costly for corporatons?
Pollution is, ultimately, waste. Waste creates additional cost. Whenever possible and economically feasible it makes sense for corporations to reduce waste.
Does that mean that corporations are ultimately completely blameless? Of course not. We all pollute.
But you need to be willing to at least entertain that some of what you consider "unneccessary" pollution may be as necessary for a corporation as it is for you.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
i have placed the blame on the corporation's practices in polluting.
they can make products and still cut down on the horrible polluting.
i don't drive because of oil companies/wars/pollution.
i can sacrifice ease of getting places but i can't sacrifice every facet of my life (and i never suggested anyONE else do so). my whole point has been about corporations' actions (not existance).
Let's assume for the sake of argument that, in fact, you are taking all actions that you can to reduce pollution.
As you, yourself, argue, further action to reduce pollution would be difficult and costly for you.
Why, therefore, do you assume that actions to reduce pollution are not at all difficult or costly for corporatons?
because corporations by design (and i believe law) are geared towards making the most profit no matter what?
look at nike. they set up a factory overseas to do sweat shop labor with children working for ridiculously low wages.
do they pass the savings on to us? do they work to improve the nations that they're exploiting?
no. they do it to make more profit, not enough to get by or a nice profit, but as much profit as they can get at any cost.
they can cut that billion+ dollar profit by a few million and do their job ethically.
Quote:
Pollution is, ultimately, waste. Waste creates additional cost. Whenever possible and economically feasible it makes sense for corporations to reduce waste.
are you talking about dumping gallons of poisonous chemicals into nature?
i understand they need to get rid of waste but for a bit more money they seal the waste in those hazmat containers that last a thousand years.
Quote:
Does that mean that corporations are ultimately completely blameless? Of course not. We all pollute.
name one single person or group of people who dump tons and tons of toxic filth into the environment.
Quote:
But you need to be willing to at least entertain that some of what you consider "unneccessary" pollution may be as necessary for a corporation as it is for you.
there are better ways to dispose of waste then just dumping it out back.
it's like you shitting on the street because a bathroom and toilet paper would reduce your take home pay.
Ray, uh, I mean, NOT Ray, just when I think you're starting to argue this matter intelligently, you fall back on hyperbole.
Do you really think corporations are intentionally and LEGALLY dumping toxic waste "out back" into the rivers, etc., in this day and age? Maybe in the past, but we have all sorts of environmental laws on the books about that.
Maybe you mean to say that current EPA standards still, in your opinion, allow too many parts per million to be exhausted into the air or water, but that's a lot different than your description of what's happening. The only difference between, say, the Bush administration and the Clinton administration on that is how many parts per million each thinks is safe. And the truth of the matter is NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.
However, to go back to my original point, if you are against these corporations doing this, the best way to vote is with your pocketbook. If the consumer can change the way, for example, McDonald's does business then they can change the way that Exxon does business.
Why do you think Hybrid cars are selling so well right now? Because the government passed a law making us buy them? No. It's because consumers decided they wanted them.
Stop looking to a big brother government for the solution to your perceived problems and look for ways to let the free market fix them. In the end, that will work better for everyone.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
name one single person or group of people who dump tons and tons of toxic filth into the environment.
The Democratic National Committee. Nah, just playin'.
Seriously, though, your argument works two ways. You refill your lighters over the toilet, you're flushing butane down into the water. Tossing styrofoam in the trash? Shame, shame. And did you know that every time you grill with charcoal, you're releasing about as much particulate and carcinogens into the air as your car does in thirty minutes in gridlock?
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
name one single person or group of people who dump tons and tons of toxic filth into the environment.
The Democratic National Committee. Nah, just playin'.
Seriously, though, your argument works two ways. You refill your lighters over the toilet, you're flushing butane down into the water. Tossing styrofoam in the trash? Shame, shame. And did you know that every time you grill with charcoal, you're releasing about as much particulate and carcinogens into the air as your car does in thirty minutes in gridlock?
your's is a fair point. and i now i'm not perfect in this matter and never said anyONE person had to be.
my point is it's like complaining "you lie about liking your wife's cooking so how dare you condemn a president for lying about a war."
Quote:
my point is it's like complaining "you lie about liking your wife's cooking so how dare you condemn a president for lying about a war."
Not really.
Putting aside that there isn't really any evidence that Bush lied...
In the above analogy the critic is being taken to task for engaging in a similar behavior as the subject of the criticism.
My issue with you is that you, the critic, are financially supporting the subject of that criticism.
It's more like criticizing someone for "lying" about the war, but then voluntarily donating to their re-election campaign.
(By the way, how much DID you donate to John "I voted for AND against the war" Kerry...just kidding)
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I'm perfectly okay with violating the tenets of a belief system I never adhered to.
The difference between Christianity and protecting the environment is that we're forced to share common resources and geography (more or less). Christians don't need non-believers for their belief system to remain intact, but we all need the planet for generations to come.
That wasn't intended to be an overarching analogy, really.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
That wasn't intended to be an overarching analogy, really.
Sorry then, dude.
I think Mxy's point alludes more to nuclear waste than acid rain and whatnot, although anyone who's lived in Los Angeles over the past decade can tell you how dangerous it is.
Nuclear awareness is on everyone's mind though rather than just the left's. It's usually in its own category when it comes to environmental corruption.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
That wasn't intended to be an overarching analogy, really.
Sorry then, dude.
I think Mxy's point alludes more to nuclear waste than acid rain and whatnot, although anyone who's lived in Los Angeles over the past decade can tell you how dangerous it is.
What are you talking about? LA is an air pollution success story. Even with population growth and an increased number of vehicles the level of air pollution has dropped steadily since stringent controls were enacted 30 years ago. And I don't mean the Federal Clean Air Act but the California version.
I don't do right/left speak--I leave that to everyone else here. My point was that the consequences of storing spent nuclear rods are still largely unknown, especially with regard to underground streams and soil within the mountains. A relative unknown, in other words.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
That wasn't intended to be an overarching analogy, really.
Sorry then, dude.
I think Mxy's point alludes more to nuclear waste than acid rain and whatnot, although anyone who's lived in Los Angeles over the past decade can tell you how dangerous it is.
What are you talking about? LA is an air pollution success story. Even with population growth and an increased number of vehicles the level of air pollution has dropped steadily since stringent controls were enacted 30 years ago. And I don't mean the Federal Clean Air Act but the California version.
Sucked when I lived there ('98).
Quote:
theory9 said:
I don't do right/left speak--I leave that to everyone else here. My point was that the consequences of storing spent nuclear rods are still largely unknown, especially with regard to underground streams and soil within the mountains. A relative unknown, in other words.
I'm not talking left or right either. I was just defending the Motherland from a perceived attack by und Äuslander. I'm feeling patriotic today!† 
† That patriotism only extends as far as the Oregon border to the North and the Eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Mtns.
Quote:
What are you talking about? LA is an air pollution success story. Even with population growth and an increased number of vehicles the level of air pollution has dropped steadily since stringent controls were enacted 30 years ago. And I don't mean the Federal Clean Air Act but the California version.
That's great. But I think to some extent that demonstrates the success of a federalist viewpoint.
LA has more cars than, say, Sandpoint, Idaho. So California needs different air quality standards than Idaho.
If the federal government were the ones enacting all the standards you would end up with either (a) too lax standards for LA; or (b) too stringent standards for Sandpoint.
Under federalism, each state has discretion to apply the appropriate standard it needs.
Even at the state level, it could be overgeneralized. Think about it. I live in Illinois. Geographically speaking, ninety percent (give or take) of this state is a giant cornfield with a relatively low density of people (and, logically, automobiles). However, the other ten percent is the third largest city in the United States, not to mention the land where gridlock was born. Needless to say, if you are planning for an emissions-reduction plan for Chicago, it's gonna be overkill for Springfield and Peoria and Kankakee and everywhere else. But if you set your standard with any of those smaller cities in mind, it's just plain not gonna cut it in Chicago. Even the state level could be considered an inefficient place from which to regulate emissions, except in homogenous states that are either completely urbanized (like most of New England) or rather sparsely populated (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.). Still, regulating emissions at the state level is a hell of a lot more efficient than at the national level.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
What are you talking about? LA is an air pollution success story. Even with population growth and an increased number of vehicles the level of air pollution has dropped steadily since stringent controls were enacted 30 years ago. And I don't mean the Federal Clean Air Act but the California version.
That's great. But I think to some extent that demonstrates the success of a federalist viewpoint.
LA has more cars than, say, Sandpoint, Idaho. So California needs different air quality standards than Idaho.
If the federal government were the ones enacting all the standards you would end up with either (a) too lax standards for LA; or (b) too stringent standards for Sandpoint.
Under federalism, each state has discretion to apply the appropriate standard it needs.
D'accord.
Production cost dictates that making a few cars for Idaho would be less economic than sending Idaho the same cars made for California and New York, which has adopted the California standard. Occaisionally the dog does wag the tail.
Quote:
theory9 said:
I think Mxy's point alludes more to nuclear waste than acid rain and whatnot
I really don't know, and I'd like to clarify that that wasn't my point. I was saying that if corporations CAN pollute (oil, nuclear waste, whatever) and get away with it, they do it, because that's their mindset. I'll leave the debate about the nature of the pollution to someone else, because I'm not informed on the subject. The fact that they pollute by itself should be enough to condemn them.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
That wasn't intended to be an overarching analogy, really.
Sorry then, dude.
I think Mxy's point alludes more to nuclear waste than acid rain and whatnot, although anyone who's lived in Los Angeles over the past decade can tell you how dangerous it is.
What are you talking about? LA is an air pollution success story. Even with population growth and an increased number of vehicles the level of air pollution has dropped steadily since stringent controls were enacted 30 years ago. And I don't mean the Federal Clean Air Act but the California version.
I don't know, where I come from the sky is supposed to be blue and the clouds grey not brown and you should be able to see the horizon.
Fine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/national/30fires.htmlQuote:
Fire Rages Through 16,000 Acres Near Los Angeles
By JOHN M. BRODER
OAK PARK, Calif., Sept. 29 - A two-mile-high cloud of brownish smoke from raging brushfires hung over this community on the western edge of Los Angeles Thursday in the surest sign that the annual fire season is upon Southern California.
A wildfire that had already burned more than 16,000 acres and threatened hundreds of expensive homes was raging out of control, but officials expressed guarded confidence that it could be contained before spreading into residential areas. The fire began Wednesday afternoon, but its cause was not known. By Thursday night, it had destroyed one home and five other structures.
One Los Angeles Fire Department firefighter was injured late Wednesday by a falling boulder, but there have been no other casualties reported.
The fire was fed by thick undergrowth that sprouted after last winter's heavy rains, although most homeowners in the area have heeded warnings to clear brush to protect their houses from the inevitable blazes.
High temperatures and negligible humidity added to the danger, although the stiff Santa Ana winds that fanned the flames on Wednesday had largely died down Thursday. Cooler temperatures and ocean breezes were forecast for Friday and the weekend, good news for firefighters.
Still, that was scant comfort for residents who watched the flames licking the hillsides near their homes as 10 helicopters dropped what seemed pitifully small amounts of water.
Dr. Roy Gottlieb, a radiologist who lives on King James Court in Oak Park, a community of million-dollar homes on the border of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, took pictures of the fires with his cellphone from the front steps of his home. He and his family left Wednesday night for a motel in Camarillo at the urging of officials. He returned briefly Thursday to pick up valuables, family photos and insurance papers.
He said his anxiety level was "7 on a 10-point scale."
"I've been told not to panic," Dr. Gottlieb said. "If I were panicked, I wouldn't be here right now, but the winds could pick up and anything could happen."
More than 3,000 firefighters from local, state and federal agencies attacked the blazes, though their hoses seldom reached into the fingerlike ridges of the mountains along the western edge of Los Angeles County.
Several hundred residents were forced to evacuate. Many took their animals, although some were ordered out of their homes without their pets. The Red Cross reported that about 500 people were staying in five shelters on Thursday. The City of Los Angeles said 215 animals, including horses, llamas, goats, mules, a pot-bellied pig and a desert tortoise, were being cared for at two shelters.
"We are guardedly optimistic - if the weather cooperates, if the public continues to cooperate as they have - this may end well for all of us," said Zev Yaroslavsky, a Los Angeles County supervisor. "But weather is unpredictable in these parts, and everyone needs to be on guard."
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, criticized for its response to Hurricane Katrina, agreed to provide assistance within hours of a state request. The action allows the state to recoup as much as 75 percent of the costs of fighting the fires, R. David Paulison, the agency's acting director, said in a statement.
Jeff and Carole Ebert, who live in a secluded canyon in Ventura County near the fire line, were told on Wednesday that they could not return home to retrieve their dogs, Zoomer and Tawny, who had not eaten since that morning. The Eberts slept at a relative's house Wednesday night and were encamped at a fire station in Chatsworth that was serving as a command post.
Mr. Ebert said Thursday that he was confident his home was still standing, partly because the fire appeared to be heading away from his canyon and partly because he had spent many hours over the summer clearing brush.
As he was talking, a police sergeant came by and told him he could not go home and he did not know when it would be safe to do so.
"Pretty much the old waiting game again," Mr. Ebert said.
The Governor is a Republican......
Quote:
Im Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
I think Mxy's point alludes more to nuclear waste than acid rain and whatnot
I really don't know, and I'd like to clarify that that wasn't my point. I was saying that if corporations CAN pollute (oil, nuclear waste, whatever) and get away with it, they do it, because that's their mindset. I'll leave the debate about the nature of the pollution to someone else, because I'm not informed on the subject. The fact that they pollute by itself should be enough to condemn them.
I'm a big fan of the free market, because the free market is governed by profit. The flaw in the free market is that its usually motivated by short term profits. Free markets need to be tightly regulated by enforcement agencies such as environmental watchdogs (and securities regualtors, anti-trust agencies and so on). For environmental watchdogs, this is to ensure that the desire for short term gain does not affect the environment in the long term.
agreed .....I'm all for Big Business but not when it affects the environment in a negative way. All the money in the world won't help you when you are swimming in toxic soup.
Quote:
PJP said:
The Governor is a Republican......
1. That has nothing to do with Ray's original theory. He clearly stated that God was attacking the Red States that voted for Bush in the last Presidential election. California's electorial votes went to Kerry, and it was declared a Blue State.
2. I'm sure there were fires, mudslides, and earthquakes during the term of Gray Davis.
3. Ray's a fucknut.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
PJP said:
The Governor is a Republican......
1. That has nothing to do with Ray's original theory. He clearly stated that God was attacking the Red States that voted for Bush in the last Presidential election. California's electorial votes went to Kerry, and it was declared a Blue State.
2. I'm sure there were fires, mudslides, and earthquakes during the term of Gray Davis.
3. Ray's a fucknut.
heh....thanks for reminding me.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
PJP said:
The Governor is a Republican......
1. That has nothing to do with Ray's original theory. He clearly stated that God was attacking the Red States that voted for Bush in the last Presidential election. California's electorial votes went to Kerry, and it was declared a Blue State.
2. I'm sure there were fires, mudslides, and earthquakes during the term of Gray Davis.
3. Ray's a fucknut.
1. I was merely pointing out the satirical irony of natural disasters devestating the states that claim god on their side.
2. yes, there was shit here when Davis was in office.
3. I know you are, but what am I?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
1. I was merely pointing out the satirical irony of natural disasters devestating the states that claim god on their side.
Satire only works if it is grounded in reality and/or based on the actual facts.
As such, for your point to be satire, you would need to demonstrate that god is only smiting the red states with natural disasters. However, he isn't, as evidenced by the wildfires currently plaguing "blue" California.
Therefore, your satire fails.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
1. I was merely pointing out the satirical irony of natural disasters devestating the states that claim god on their side.
Satire only works if it is grounded in reality and/or based on the actual facts.
As such, for your point to be satire, you would need to demonstrate that god is only smiting the red states with natural disasters. However, he isn't, as evidenced by the wildfires currently plaguing "blue" California.
Therefore, your satire fails.
but this thread came after I read a Fallwell quote blaming 9/11 on feminists. He said it was God's wrath.
Ironically, I was going to link to the Wikipedia section with the quote, but the page has been edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_fallwell
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Quote:
PJP said:
The Governor is a Republican......
1. That has nothing to do with Ray's original theory. He clearly stated that God was attacking the Red States that voted for Bush in the last Presidential election. California's electorial votes went to Kerry, and it was declared a Blue State.
2. I'm sure there were fires, mudslides, and earthquakes during the term of Gray Davis.
3. Ray's a fucknut.
1. Ray has a theory? I thought it was more of a casual observation.
2. The fires and mudslides are pretty much an annual event. They've been happening for thousands of years and are part of the ecology of the coastal mtn. ranges. But the worst ones happened under Pete Wilson, a Republican (and an asshole regardless of party affiliation, as was Davis). There's really not much that can be done other than not build in hilly areas covered by chaparelle. 'But the views are so great! '. No one's runnin' with that idea.
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
Fallwell is a fucknut.
While I'm at it:
Pat Roberts is a fucknut.
Jesse Jackson is a fucknut.
Al Sharpton is a fucknut. (Yet, an enjoyable one.)
That old bastard on TBN and his purple haired wife are fucknuts.
Pretty much all the assholes who use God to get on TV to steal people's money or to shield their racism are fucknuts.
I think that covers all of that group.
I seem to be unfamiliar with a lot of fucknuts.
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
I seem to be unfamiliar with a lot of fucknuts.
Consider yourself lucky!
Quote:
but this thread came after I read a Fallwell quote blaming 9/11 on feminists. He said it was God's wrath.
Do you find any one here on "the right" who tends to defend Falwell on a regular basis? No. But, despite that, you keep bringing up him and Robertson as if we are a bunch of his followers and we need to be "schooled" on what idiot fuckwits they are.
I think its pretty clear that even among republicans, these two are at best the political equivalent to the "crazy old uncles" we tolerate because their good to us, not people we respect or admire. Which would seem to compare and contrast to the members of the left on this board that regularly CITE their fuckwits (Moore, Brock, Sharpton, Sheehan, etc.) as people they respect and admire.
And, if we are going to talk about blame-assigning fuckwits, your need to tell us how this disaster is the fault of George Bush, corporations, and anyone you disagree with is not particular a different exercise in finger pointing than what Falwell did.
So we have two fuckwits. One who doesn't post here (Falwell) and you.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
being anti-corporation doesn't make me a communist. in fact my beliefs lean more towards libral socialism in ther ways of FDR and some of Europe.
I'm very much a believer in the individual rights of people and believe that smaller companies create a greater need to be honest in it's dealings.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
being anti-corporation doesn't make me a communist. in fact my beliefs lean more towards libral socialism in ther ways of FDR and some of Europe.
I'm very much a believer in the individual rights of people and believe that smaller companies create a greater need to be honest in it's dealings.
You can still be a capitalist and be Pro-small business.....I am.
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
being anti-corporation doesn't make me a communist. in fact my beliefs lean more towards libral socialism in ther ways of FDR and some of Europe.
I'm very much a believer in the individual rights of people and believe that smaller companies create a greater need to be honest in it's dealings.
You can still be a capitalist and be Pro-small business.....I am.
and i am pro small business. i believe diversity in business breeds competition and a need for a positive image.
i am, however, anti multinational corporations and the huge corporations that own so much they're practically untouchable.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
being anti-corporation doesn't make me a communist. in fact my beliefs lean more towards libral socialism in ther ways of FDR and some of Europe.
I'm very much a believer in the individual rights of people and believe that smaller companies create a greater need to be honest in it's dealings.
You can still be a capitalist and be Pro-small business.....I am.
and i am pro small business. i believe diversity in business breeds competition and a need for a positive image.
i am, however, anti multinational corporations and the huge corporations that own so much they're practically untouchable.
I'm with you 100%. I go nuts every time I see another Bank Merger. I hate monopolies I always side with the little guy in head to head battles.
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
being anti-corporation doesn't make me a communist. in fact my beliefs lean more towards libral socialism in ther ways of FDR and some of Europe.
I'm very much a believer in the individual rights of people and believe that smaller companies create a greater need to be honest in it's dealings.
You can still be a capitalist and be Pro-small business.....I am.
and i am pro small business. i believe diversity in business breeds competition and a need for a positive image.
i am, however, anti multinational corporations and the huge corporations that own so much they're practically untouchable.
I'm with you 100%. I go nuts every time I see another Bank Merger. I hate monopolies I always side with the little guy in head to head battles.
we finally agree. here you go.
Quote:
the G-man said:
So we have two fuckwits. One who doesn't post here (Falwell) and you.
Keep countin', lawdog...
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
3. Indeed, Ray is a fucknut. He's only a temporary guest worker in the People's Republic.
being anti-corporation doesn't make me a communist. in fact my beliefs lean more towards libral socialism in ther ways of FDR and some of Europe.
I'm very much a believer in the individual rights of people and believe that smaller companies create a greater need to be honest in it's dealings.
You can still be a capitalist and be Pro-small business.....I am.
and i am pro small business. i believe diversity in business breeds competition and a need for a positive image.
i am, however, anti multinational corporations and the huge corporations that own so much they're practically untouchable.
I'm with you 100%. I go nuts every time I see another Bank Merger. I hate monopolies I always side with the little guy in head to head battles.
we finally agree. here you go.
I wanted a Dr. Pepper.
Quote:
the G-man said:
So we have two fuckwits. One who doesn't post here (Falwell) and you.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Keep countin', lawdog...
Your attempt at neutrality fails.
As noted above, my point was, and the point of most of the people that have posted on this topic over the last month was, that anyone who tries to blame this act of god or nature on the behavior of anyone is a fuckwit.
Both Falwell and r3xy are attempting to blame the hurricanes on human behavior they dislike.
As such, if r3xy feels that Falwell is a fuckwit, then by his own definition he is also one.
Hold on a fucking minute: when did we stop talking about fucknuts and start talking about fuckwits? You intend to have a proper debate but you can't keep track of your wits and your nuts?
Its a regional dialect issue. They mean the same thing.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
So we have two fuckwits. One who doesn't post here (Falwell) and you.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Keep countin', lawdog...
Your attempt at neutrality fails.
As noted above, my point was, and the point of most of the people that have posted on this topic over the last month was, that anyone who tries to blame this act of god or nature on the behavior of anyone is a fuckwit.
Both Falwell and r3xy are attempting to blame the hurricanes on human behavior they dislike.
As such, if r3xy feels that Falwell is a fuckwit, then by his own definition he is also one.
Boy was I way off. I thought he was making a joke!
Quote:
the G-man said:
Its a regional dialect issue. They mean the same thing.
Only if you equate the head on your shoulders to the one in your crotch. I can see how you could make that mistake. 
My wife SAYS we all think with our dicks.
Quote:
the G-man said:
My wife SAYS we all think with our dicks.
Leave Wednesday out of this.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
So we have two fuckwits. One who doesn't post here (Falwell) and you.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Keep countin', lawdog...
Your attempt at neutrality fails.
As noted above, my point was, and the point of most of the people that have posted on this topic over the last month was, that anyone who tries to blame this act of god or nature on the behavior of anyone is a fuckwit.
Both Falwell and r3xy are attempting to blame the hurricanes on human behavior they dislike.
As such, if r3xy feels that Falwell is a fuckwit, then by his own definition he is also one.
Boy was I way off. I thought he was making a joke!
That's what I'm sayin'!
the G-man said:
You have plenty of choices regarding your desire (not need) to patronize large corporations, Ray.
Unless you use only what you need, bare minimum, to survive, you are a voluntary consumer. Unlike taxes, the federal government does not REQUIRE you to shop for nonessentials. Those are all voluntary acts on your part.
Furthermore, the government does not require you to buy nonessential products directly from corporations. You could, as noted above, buy used products, which results in no profit to the corporations. You could also buy only natural products.
You're voting with your checkbook, Ray. And every time you buy a nonessential item your vote is FOR corporations.
lets see.
i got the cable not owned by rupert murdoch.
i don't eat at big chain fast food.
i smoke imported tobacco with few of the extra chemicals in american shit.
i make my choices here and there. but i don't really buy that much beyond essentials. the only thing you can really say i buy that i don't need is comics from Time-Warner and Marvel (whoever the hell owns them).
- “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”
Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres. However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines - about 2% of global CO2 emissions. “Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,” said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power.
Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates. When you type in a Google search for, say, “energy saving tips”, your request doesn’t go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other.
It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart. Google’s infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption. Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China.
Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has also set up a website http://www.CO2stats.com.
Can't we just all get along and blow the world to pieces and get it over with?
Imagine that, 2009, the year the world ended...
Suck on that you stupid Mayans!
cut the mayans some slack. they don't underestimate the importance of heart.