peter_puck
-
Posts
321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by peter_puck
-
-
A Rozita Swinton is also an Obama State Delegate, surely this can't be the same woman.
So far, I have seen you attack Obama for his middle name, his primary school education and the fact that one of his supporters shares the same name as somebody who called a crime hotline. Whats next ? Are we going to explore the views of his barber ?
-
Then maybe you can tell me what piece of legislation allows the federal government to impose and collect income tax on a permanent basis?
You must be a liberal and in favour of draconian, Nazi type oppression.
If you were serious about the environment, you would be suggesting a law that allows a single vehicle per family. This would have an enormous positive effect on pollution.
But this might affect your personal lifestyle and we can't have that, can we.
As for the detax stuff, people go to court and get punished all the time for not filing tax returns. Name me one court case where a judge has agreed with your "no right to tax" theory.
No, I am not a liberal, nor a Nazi. I believe in the free market - whose judgement can be far more cruel than either the Nazi's or the liberals. The basic fact is we are running out of oil. Its not taxes, its not greedy oil companies, its supply and demand.
As for one vehicle per family limit, I think that would be to crude a tool (two lawyers using one car). You could put a huge premium on SUV's and Hummers. No one should drive back and forth to work with that much steel. We can limit urban sprawl, promote public transportation etc...
Someone down my street just bough a Hummer - we should increase gas taxes until people stop doing that.
-
The federal government does not even have the legal right to impose income tax much less tax gasoline.
Yes the government DOES have the legal right to impose income tax. No, I don't want to here your twisted logic about why they can't, or about the Jewish conspiracy that supposedly hides the truth from us.
As for the gas tax, we should increase it if anything. In the long run, gas is going to cost a whole lot more. If someone has to pay 1.40 a litre now, it may save him from buying a Hummer and paying 4.4 a litre 5 years from now.
-
Probably so. A minority is still a win.
A minority would preserve the status quo as far as the government goes. It would also cost alot of money and perhaps result in a new/more popular Liberal leader.
It might technically be a win, but it would be an empty one.
-
Cadman is about on par with Dosanjh and Murphy trying to bribe Grewal. Yes, it's dirty politics, and in this regard the Torys are no better than the Liberals.
Ummm....I think you needed to listen to the Grewal tapes after the little edits were removed. Nothing on that tape was criminal (I would have loved to hear the Stronach tapes - but they don't exist). IF the Conservatives offered $1 million dollars for Cadman's vote - that would be criminal. They are both in the gutter, but the Liberals had their toes on the line, the Cons went over (if the story is true)
-
No, but my point is still the same. If the ill-conceived videotape is the first and only time this guy has said these types of remarks,
Sure it was...
-
I don't want to make excuses for the guy but Geez, 40 years old and said something stupid with a bottle of beer in his hand, how unusual. You obviously don't get out much.
I have gotten very drunk, but I have never started to find men attractive. The moral here ? Drunk or not, I am what I am, a hetrosexual male. Drunk or not, he is what he is, a homophobic bigot.
-
Great. Just great. Good to see all of us Conservatives can still get dragged through the mud because of something one insignificant person said 16 years ago. No matter what we do or say we are always shackled to the perception that all Conservatives are like that.
This happens because there is a very small, but real, minority of these people in the Conservative party and conservative movement. When someone says something REALLY stooopid, it drowns out the more sane voices.
We need to move beyond not saying things like that to not tolerating them. Years ago it worked with the racists, now we need to apply that to the homopobs as well.
I am not suprised that the guy said what he said, what is shocking is that he felt free to say it. I know lots of conservatives and I don't know one who would laugh at a joke that involved the "n" word. We need to apply the same concept of shame to the jerks like him.
-
I'm entitled to my opinion.
You don't agree that the gays caused the AIDS epidemic? I thought everyone knew that.
Gays did not cause the AIDS epidemic. It was caused by socially awkward 15 year old boy in the jungle who was left at home to take care of the monkeys while his parents were away.
In North America it spread rapidly in the homosexual population, but in most other parts of the world the spread is mostly hetrosexual.
If you blame anyone blame the people who used dirty needles (or the people who prevented the people with dirty needles from getting clean) ones. That is now it moved from gay men to all those women who refuse to date me.
-
I think that in dismissing what was long-accepted, conventional scientific and historical belief the "The Sky is Falling!" crowd need to do more than simply say "Well, we don't believe that any more". Europeans were sailing through the northern straits of North American back in the medieval times. Yet the "The sky is Falling!" crowd would have us believe that if the northern ice melts to the degree that - well, you can sail through the northern straits - that this is a global catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.
"Pay no attention to those historical accounts! Look at my nifty computer model!" Pttthh.
I really don't know if you are joking or not. Nobody made it through the North West Passage until 1900 something. Even then it took a few years. Go a certain distance, got locked in the ice, continue on in the spring.
Perhaps my history was influenced by some of these climate thugs (who must have built a time machine since this debate was not arround when I was in school), but I don't remember the Vikings actually making it through the North West passage.
-
The peer-review process is deeply flawed. Bad papers that support the consensus receive minimal review yet good papers that go against the concensus are analyzed for every little flaw.
In some cases, an error found in anti-AGW paper also exists in pro-AGW papers yet the alarmists turn a blind eye or resort to rediculous contortions to justify the actions of the alarmist.
Even worse. the journal editors have unethically passed the papers onto to AGW alarmists so they could prepare a rebuttle before the paper is actually published. This bypassed the usual process of submitting letters to a journal which prevented the original author from formally responding to the rebuttle in the journal.
Every scientist knows this goes on which means most scientists choose the easy way out and pay lip service the consensus because their need to get papers published is greater than their need to do what is scientifically right.
Gangs of chemists with shanks in their pocket protectors trying to keep people from talking ? This is not how the world works. I know people in this type of environment and this does not exist on the scale you are talking about.
If there is any intimidation, it goes the other way. The Bush administration and the Canadian government (before their conversions and probably after) have told their scientists to shut up. Canada's leading anti-AGW "scientists" Dr Ball launched a slap suit against his critics. That anti-AGW guy in the US congress threatened to launch a public inquiry into the finances of two prominent scientists testifying before congress.
What matters is if the science of the sceptics has merit.What matters is that other scientists who look at the sceptics work don't think it has merit. What also seems inportant is that sceptics arguements have a very short shelf life. There arguments today are different than what they were a few years ago. Remember the 11 year solar flare cycle that used to be all the rage ? How about that satelite that showed the earth was cooling ?
1) Data collected by the MSU satellite shows that the mid-troposheric is not warming as fast as the models predict.Okay, cool. It was alot warmer today that it is supposed to be according to the weather channel. Now, since their model must be crap,I am going to go kinny dipping when their obviously refuted model says there is going to be a hurricane.
The models are meant to describe behavior over time. It is easy to pick holes in a rough model, but why don't these anti-AGW types come up with a model of their own ?
Unfortunately, telling a government official that they don't need to spend money on a problem is professional suicide.Really ? Not that I am a fan of government spending, but I can point to a whole host of cases where the government needed to spend money and didn't (cause they wanted to spend the money on a goose museum or something like that)
-
We have yet to consume half of KNOWN reserves we ever discovered.200 billion more barrels just recently reported in America available for drilling.
American oil production has declined since the days of $2 a barrel. If there was so much available oil, why was it not drilled long ago ?
The AGW hysteria is disrupting the marketing of oil.Oil is at 100 plus a barrell...I don't think it needs marketing
If the governments and environmentalists would stop meddling.There would a greater speed of developing and using alternative fuels.But now the brain dead politicians are slowing it all down because of Carbon tax and other proposals.Creating uncertainty in the energy market.There is HUGE money going into the oilsands. That is VERY expensive oil to extract. The oil companies don't seem that uncertain.
It would be really nice if the idiots (politicians and environmentalists) would stop fighting the use of Nuclear plants construction with known ZERO CO2 emissions.The high level waste is a problem only because politics are in the way.Environmentalists are the problem since Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 emissions.They oppose it anyway.Because they are drooling stupid.I would agree .....nuclear is the only thing that is going to tide us over until some of those things you see on Star Trek come on line
-
QUOTE(peter_puck @ Mar 30 2008, 08:35 PM)
I am not saying that there are not legitimate scientists who hold anti-AGW views. They are just a rather small minority. I am sure that this has been posted before, but all accross the globe where any scientific organization has looked at the AGW question, they have supported the AGW view. Name me one country that holds an anti-AGW view, name me one national scientific society, name me one major scientific organization.
Country---->The Excited States of America, Canada
I am afraid you are wrong. Both these countries have supported the basics of AGW. They are interfereing in Koyoto because it is not in their economic best interests, but both Bush and Harper have come out support the concept.
-
Oh really?
The AGW crew has shown a singular unwillingess to debate, which shows that AGW has become more of a religion than a science. Bjorn Lomborg is a former AGW scientist who was convinced otherwise. He is hardly a "conservative talk show host".
I am not saying that there are not legitimate scientists who hold anti-AGW views. They are just a rather small minority. I am sure that this has been posted before, but all accross the globe where any scientific organization has looked at the AGW question, they have supported the AGW view. Name me one country that holds an anti-AGW view, name me one national scientific society, name me one major scientific organization.
Futhermore, if you look at most of the legitimate scientists who hold anti-AGW, they do not use words like "hoax" and "conspiracy" to describe the other side.
The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.Al Gore is a TV pitch man. AGW is a scientific question. It should not be a debated between a TV pitchman and a scientists on television. It should be a debated between scientists in peer-reviewed research. THAT is where the anti-AGW people chicken out.
I don't really care about how many "facts" you have, I want to know why the scientific community seems to ignore them. And please, don't tell me about some giant liberal conspiracy. Bush and Haper have switched sides, would you call them liberal ?
While there are legitimate anti-AGW scientists, all I seem to hear is defense lawyer reasoning and strawmen.
-
The majority of the world's electricity comes from coal - a relatively cheap and plentify substance. Regulating CO2 will make ELECTRICITY much more expensive for everyone. In fact, they are already experiencing power shortages in South Africa because environmentalists pressured the government to drop its plans for coal fired plants in favour of a hydro electric development in a neighboring country that was never built.
I don't think we are going to have the same problem with electricity as we are with oil. In the long run, however, it is a better idea to generate electricity with nuclear power. Coal's polution downside goes far beyond C02 (atleast with the generating plants we have now). If you taxed the coal going into a coal plant, it would encourage more nuclear.
Besides, coal could become a problem for our grandchildren if the rest of the worlds fuel consumption catches up to the US. (especially if oil prices get to the point where they start making gasoline out of coal).
Not that I am in favor of a broad based carbon tax. There are much more surgical ways to do things.
-
On TV news, seems like the Congress is really peeved at Bush because instead of buying American made defense planes, he's going to Europe and buying the AIRBUS. Does it seem like the 80's all over again? This Congress person was so angry she want to impeach Bush! I wonder who in the Bush crime family has shares in Airbus?
You don't need shares to profit from Airbus ...ask Mulroney :-)
-
You are missing the point. Government regulation of CO2 due to the AGW hysteria will inflates energy prices over whatever they would be otherwise.
Again, they would inflate the prices in THE SHORT TERM. Oil is a finite resourse. The more we consume, the higher the price will be. I am not afraid of some silly tax, I am afraid of supply and demand. For all its downside, the oil shock of the 70's probably lowered what we pay for gas today.
-
As I suggested earlier - educated and intelligent people have their doubts about this man-made global warming phenomenon, but poorly educated - unstable - and not very bright people have embraced it wholeheartedly.
Do you have any evidence to back this statement up ?
Most of the anti-AGW posts and blogs I have read demonstrate an amazing lack of critical thinking skills (this forum seems to be an exception). The proponents of AGW are governments, scientists and scientific organizations. Most of the opponents seem to be conservative talk show hosts and their callers. Does it make me "not very bright" to believe scientists rather than talk show hoasts
-
Apparently, within 2 years China's greenhouse gas emissions are expected to totally swamp out the entire reductions of ALL of the other countries COMBINED!
Could some Dion supporter now please explain to me why we should even bother?
Here's the link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ns-by-2010.html
The problem is that most of the earth is in the stone age compared to us. Most people in China (and the rest of the world) don't have cars. You cannot go to Africa and tell someone who walks 10 miles to work that he can't have a moped because it would wipe of the carbon you saved by buying a smaller SUV.
In the past most countries have been unable to afford fossil fuels. Right now there is no reason that someone in the third world cannot engineer the same car or write the same computer program that we do. Soon they will be able to afford the same energy.
As for "Why should we even bother".
1) If we continue to consume ever more expensive fossil fuels it will sap our economic strength.
2) Smog is a bad thing.
3) A portion of every oil dollar goes to fund A) Chavez, B)Iran, C) Sudan D) Bin Laden (yes I know Canada is a net exporter, I am speaking of the world here).
4)If you believe global warming will have a large negative impact, decreasing our consumption will help.
-
Birth rates decline in rich societies. Denying people access to cheap energy will make societies poorer which will make the overpopulation problem worse. Allowing third world countries to develop is the best way to get them to limit their population.
Hate to break it to you, but cheap energy is gone. I doubt the politicians could really deny the world cheap energy, but I KNOW the markets will. It is simple math, you have a limited supply and rapidly growing demand. There is no way we can continue to consume like pigs and the third world develop at the same time.
While many of the "green measures" cost more with todays energy prices, they will be cheap by tommorrows.
We should not be building houses with 100 year lifespans that are energy pigs.
George Bush Was Right About A.N.W.R
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
George Bush has been correct about almost nothing during his presidency - and I am an economic conservative.
While I suppose I do support drilling ANWR it is nowhere near a solution. Go look at home much oil consumption has been rising.
This reminds me of the IBM commercial where a company board tries to hire a rock bank to write a jingle because they have serious structural problems, and a cute jingle just might make people forget. Thats all ANWR is - a cute jingle.
The problem is that the US has to dramatically lower its oil consumption and change its lifestyle. Everyone is afraid to say this however. Instead they resort to lies like corn ethanol, or blame scapegoats like the gas tax or greedy oil companies.
Short sighted is thinking ANWR is going to make a difference. The problem is world wide. Some guy in China can do the same job anyone on this board does. Over the long run, that means he can afford the same lifestyle we do now. Problem is that there is not enough oil, copper, platinum, rare earths, for both of us to comsume the same amount of materials that we do now.
Oil is a global. It would be skyrocketing if ANWR was drilled or not. Oil prices are based on the WORLD market. The jobs would be a drop in the bucket, especially considering there is a huge unfilled labour shortage in that industry now anyways.