Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous

[Shady]

Must be nice...

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Link

Once again, the true believers show us all exactly what they're all about.

I gotta admit though, it sounds like a heckuva party!

[eyeball]

Yeah I imagine the WTO/IMF bashes are a real hoot too.

[bjre]

Once again, the true beLIEvers show us all exactly what they're all about.

[Shady]

Yeah I imagine the WTO/IMF bashes are a real hoot too.

Niice dodge. Nice try.

But how about the utter hypocrisy by the global-warming truebelievers? They're so concerned about the environment that they roll out in 1200+ limousines and 140+ private jets. While at the same time, they're preaching to everyone else, about how the rest of us serfs need to curtail our environmentally destructive behavior, like driving to work for our jobs, or using the air-conditioning in the summer when it's hot.

They can go fuck themselves. What complete assholes. All of them.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Shady

[paulfrottawa]

weather is all ways changing. And were headed towards a severe change. It can be put off and even reversed if nature does that. But we caused it to change for sure.

[BubberMiley]

They can go fuck themselves. What complete assholes. All of them.

One must be pious to care for the planet?

[bush_cheney2004]

One must be pious to care for the planet?

Only when forcing others to do the same.

[blueblood]

Yeah I imagine the WTO/IMF bashes are a real hoot too.

At least they're not hypocrites, with them what you see is what you get.

At least the WTO/IMF looks to better the lives of ordinary people, not hold us back.

[madmax]

At least they're not hypocrites, with them what you see is what you get.

At least the WTO/IMF looks to better the lives of ordinary people, not hold us back.

I was with you until that last line. The WTO and IMF are not out to better anyones lives, and the monetary policies imposed by the IMF have totally screwed up entire countries. The WTO IMF version of properity is called South America, where corporations run everything and corruption is in abundance.

The WTO and IMF have no interest in bettering the lives of ordinary people, they don't travel in the circles of ordinary people. That isn't their mandate.

Edited December 7, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

Niice dodge. Nice try.

But how about the utter hypocrisy by the global-warming truebelievers? They're so concerned about the environment that they roll out in 1200+ limousines and 140+ private jets. While at the same time, they're preaching to everyone else, about how the rest of us serfs need to curtail our environmentally destructive behavior, like driving to work for our jobs, or using the air-conditioning in the summer when it's hot.

Actually, their not. Which is the problem. You should be thinking about these things if you give a shit or believe in that it is not good for the environment, which it isn't. However, as the Most political parties have turned the environment into tax policy, the new game is who pays the tax. Not what is cut.

BTW, that's no dodge above. Same groups of elitists showing up. And most political dignitaries use this mode of travel, an airplane to cross the ocean, and a limo to get to an event.

Our Prime Minister will be doing the same IIRC.

They can go fuck themselves. What complete assholes. All of them.

Forward your message to the Canadian Delegates, including the Prime Minister. I am sure he's been called that before.

[blueblood]

I was with you until that last line. The WTO and IMF are not out to better anyones lives, and the monetary policies imposed by the IMF have totally screwed up entire countries. The WTO IMF version of properity is called South America, where corporations run everything and corruption is in abundance.

The WTO and IMF have no interest in bettering the lives of ordinary people, they don't travel in the circles of ordinary people. That isn't their mandate.

I beg to differ, with WTO policies, we here in Canada benefit, and other developing countries with competant leadership also benefit. Everybody gets richer, just those in developing countries don't get rich fast enough according to some.

The climate change BS plans to make developing countries richer by screwing us and the developed world over.

In the grand scheme of things the WTO/IMF are better for ordinary people in the long run even though the WTO and IMF aren't in the business of helping ordinary people. It's in the WTO/IMF/corporate interests that more people get richer as that leads to more consumption and bigger profits and more wealth created.

As for the scare tactics about humans being in trouble, from what I recall on ancient history and human anatomy, I don't think humans were supposed to be dwelling in places where it gets to freezing temperatures, but somehow we pulled it off.

[GostHacked]

Easy solutions. Plant more trees.

Next thing there will be a tax on how much we breathe.

[Shady]

Forward your message to the Canadian Delegates, including the Prime Minister. I am sure he's been called that before.

I wasn't referring to our government. I was referring to the scientists and elites, who preach to us on living a certain lifestyle, while they continue to live like kings. Like I said, apparently it's just us serfs who have to conform to their ideals.

We're suppose to do as they say, not as they do.

[eyeball]

Niice dodge. Nice try.

But how about the utter hypocrisy by the global-warming truebelievers? They're so concerned about the environment that they roll out in 1200+ limousines and 140+ private jets. While at the same time, they're preaching to everyone else, about how the rest of us serfs need to curtail our environmentally destructive behavior, like driving to work for our jobs, or using the air-conditioning in the summer when it's hot.

They can go fuck themselves. What complete assholes. All of them.

I think if you look more closely you'll find its likely the fucking politicians and their hangers-on that are rolling out in such style.

It looks to me like the real believers were rappelling off the roof of the Parliament Buildings this morning, but I suspect you'd probably call them terrorists.

[eyeball]

At least they're not hypocrites, with them what you see is what you get.

Yeah? 10$ says they've fudged their data sets and conspired to thwart sceptics too.

At least the WTO/IMF looks to better the lives of ordinary people, not hold us back.

[blueblood]

Yeah? 10$ says they've fudged their data sets and conspired to thwart sceptics too.

You show me where they fudged their data sets and conspired to thwart sceptics. There however is plenty of proof showing that AGW is a bunch of malarkey (thank you Riverwind).

You explain to me how loaning money to developing countries makes them poorer. You tell me how taxing the heck out of rich countries and giving the money to poor countries makes the world a better place. BTW that experiment has been tried and failed on a smaller scale.

[eyeball]

You show me where they fudged their data sets and conspired to thwart sceptics. There however is plenty of proof showing that AGW is a bunch of malarkey (thank you Riverwind).

You explain to me how loaning money to developing countries makes them poorer. You tell me how taxing the heck out of rich countries and giving the money to poor countries makes the world a better place. BTW that experiment has been tried and failed on a smaller scale.

Speaking of failed experiments and scepticism, I notice some governments still believe that cutting their own revenues will increase their incomes. How else can one explain this without concluding that some very influential economists fudged their numbers?

[blueblood]

Speaking of failed experiments and scepticism, I notice some governments still believe that cutting their own revenues will increase their incomes. How else can one explain this without concluding that some very influential economists fudged their numbers?

Cutting taxes results in a better environment to create wealth in. Canada has been successful at this endeavour in the late 90's/most of the 2000's. Taxes were reduced, and the gov't still ran surpluses. That's what smart provinces/countries do to make money. No number fudging going on there, just simple economics. Canada vs. Venezuela, who lives in better conditions???

[Martin Chriton]

Speaking of failed experiments and scepticism, I notice some governments still believe that cutting their own revenues will increase their incomes. How else can one explain this without concluding that some very influential economists fudged their numbers?

It's not all black and white.

Lets compare a 80% tax and a 20% tax. Which model has the best short term and long term benefits for government revenue? Answer: In the short term a 80% tax. In the long term a 20% tax.

Time to study economics eyeball.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Martin Chriton

[Martin Chriton]

-

Edited December 7, 2009 by Martin Chriton

[wyly]

Cutting taxes results in a better environment to create wealth in. Canada has been successful at this endeavour in the late 90's/most of the 2000's. Taxes were reduced, and the gov't still ran surpluses. That's what smart provinces/countries do to make money. No number fudging going on there, just simple economics. Canada vs. Venezuela, who lives in better conditions???

comparing Canada and Venezuela...geez be serious...

[eyeball]

Time to study economics eyeball.

You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy but not the other way around. There is no balance sheet that squares our draw down of Earth's natural capital with the growth of our economy. Whatever else I need to know follows from that starting point, whatever I've learned that doesn't is very likely wrong.

[Martin Chriton]

You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy but not the other way around. There is no balance sheet that squares our draw down of Earth's natural capital with the growth of our economy. Whatever else I need to know follows from that starting point, whatever I've learned that doesn't is very likely wrong.

You've gone off on a tangent.

Do you acknowledge that your original assertion of "I notice some governments still believe that cutting their own revenues will increase their incomes. How else can one explain this without concluding that some very influential economists fudged their numbers?" was incorrect? Obviously cutting taxes does make sense in some situations.

[eyeball]

You've gone off on a tangent.

Do you acknowledge that your original assertion of "I notice some governments still believe that cutting their own revenues will increase their incomes. How else can one explain this without concluding that some very influential economists fudged their numbers?" was incorrect?

Maybe but only some of the time and never for a sustained time - I'd like to see a third or even fourth party forensic audit of any country that has cut its revenues and increased its income before I could even guess one way or the other. This should include the GPI's of these countries along with a full cost accounting and balance sheet that squares the drawdown of their natural capital (including sink resources) with the growth of their economies.

Obviously cutting taxes does make sense in some situations.

Especially just before an election. Sorry about this tangent. I just can't help myself, they're everywhere in this issue.

[Shady]

Maybe but only some of the time and never for a sustained time

Complete nonsense.

I'd like to see a third or even fourth party forensic audit of any country that has cut its revenues and increased its income before I could even guess one way or the other.

Why? Its already been done, several times, in the 20's, in the 60's, in the 80's, and even this decade. During Reagan's terms, the across the board 35% income tax rate on all tax brackets led to an increase in revenue to the government in almost every year, except a couple, which were the bottom of the late 70's/early 80's recession.

Link

any country that has cut its revenues and increased its income

This is completely wrong. Tax revenue shouldn't be looked at as government income, but more as government inheritance. Income is earned. The government doesn't earn any income. Their revenue is based only on the work and income of other people, the taxpayers. So to phrase it in a way that suggests government is cutting their own "income" is incorrect.