|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
 "My Fellow Americans..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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).
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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. 
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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.
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-09-28 8:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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."
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
That wasn't intended to be an overarching analogy, really.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
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.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Fine. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
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.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
The Governor is a Republican...... 
|
|
|
|
|
