Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ladies and Men,

I am ashamed to be a Canadian today, our Government has rejected the kyoto accords and refused to adhere to restrictions which could help save the environment because they are unwilling to accept that the economy would have to take a hit in order to fulfill them.

This is an example of the classic situation of whats more important? Your money or your life? In this case they have chosen money.

The only good side to this is that it will most likely cost the conservatives the next election. Due to the fact that if they don't enact the restrictions, then the public will slam them for putting the final nail in the economy. If they do then they plan to pass the costs onto the people in the form of drastically higher energy bills which people could not pay and would result in them being voted out.

I think the UN needs to enact sanctions against my country until they accept their responsibilities to aid in preventing the complete collapse of the environment given that we are one of the world's leading polluters.

I think this is something the nations of the world need to get involved in, because what we are doing to the environment will effect everyone around the globe.

I have never been this ashamed of my country before.

So is it okay if we Americans bash you night and day liek you and the tools in the UK do every day?

Just...kidding... sorta.

But yeah, it really is a shame how so many countries refuse to clean up the enviroment due to "money issues". I would understand more if it was a third world country. But a rich country like the US and Canada have no excuse. It's just greed.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Ladies and Men,

I am ashamed to be a Canadian today, our Government has rejected the kyoto accords and refused to adhere to restrictions which could help save the environment because they are unwilling to accept that the economy would have to take a hit in order to fulfill them.

This is an example of the classic situation of whats more important? Your money or your life? In this case they have chosen money.

The only good side to this is that it will most likely cost the conservatives the next election. Due to the fact that if they don't enact the restrictions, then the public will slam them for putting the final nail in the economy. If they do then they plan to pass the costs onto the people in the form of drastically higher energy bills which people could not pay and would result in them being voted out.

I think the UN needs to enact sanctions against my country until they accept their responsibilities to aid in preventing the complete collapse of the environment given that we are one of the world's leading polluters.

I think this is something the nations of the world need to get involved in, because what we are doing to the environment will effect everyone around the globe.

I have never been this ashamed of my country before. I'm glad they abandoned the Kyoto Accord. That said, I believe that sweeping environmental reforms are needed, but Kyoto was unreasonable. Also, the fact that Alberta has the fastest growing economy in the world right now and the fact that the Albertan provincial government has already denounced the Kyoto Accord, it has made the Kyoto Accord obsolete in Canada.

I strongly doubt that this will bring down the Conservatives. Kyoto was never that popular and the Conservatives have done an excellent job this term. Who is going to replace them? The Liberals are the only party with the support to do it, but they are a mess of hemhawing, empty promises and marred by the ad scandals.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Ladies and Men,

I am ashamed to be a Canadian today, our Government has rejected the kyoto accords and refused to adhere to restrictions which could help save the environment because they are unwilling to accept that the economy would have to take a hit in order to fulfill them.

This is an example of the classic situation of whats more important? Your money or your life? In this case they have chosen money.

The only good side to this is that it will most likely cost the conservatives the next election. Due to the fact that if they don't enact the restrictions, then the public will slam them for putting the final nail in the economy. If they do then they plan to pass the costs onto the people in the form of drastically higher energy bills which people could not pay and would result in them being voted out.

I think the UN needs to enact sanctions against my country until they accept their responsibilities to aid in preventing the complete collapse of the environment given that we are one of the world's leading polluters.

I think this is something the nations of the world need to get involved in, because what we are doing to the environment will effect everyone around the globe.

I have never been this ashamed of my country before.


Hey, do you have any of those ketchup potato chips. If you do, I'll pay top dollar. My wife loves those things ..

Originally posted by Secretus
Hey, do you have any of those ketchup potato chips. If you do, I'll pay top dollar. My wife loves those things ..

Don't spam my topics, this isn't the OTF.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm glad they abandoned the Kyoto Accord. That said, I believe that sweeping environmental reforms are needed, but Kyoto was unreasonable. Also, the fact that Alberta has the fastest growing economy in the world right now and the fact that the Albertan provincial government has already denounced the Kyoto Accord, it has made the Kyoto Accord obsolete in Canada.

I strongly doubt that this will bring down the Conservatives. Kyoto was never that popular and the Conservatives have done an excellent job this term. Who is going to replace them? The Liberals are the only party with the support to do it, but they are a mess of hemhawing, empty promises and marred by the ad scandals.

I smell a conservative. Whats unreasonable is letting the environment crash and burn in order to make the country richer. There are things we can do to absorb the cost. Reduce government salaries, cut expense accounts to politicians. Increase the taxes to the super rich and cut out the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying taxes.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I am ashamed to be a Canadian today
We don't care.

Again do not spam the topic. Speak to the issue or do not post.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Don't spam my topics, this isn't the OTF.

Oh sorry. My mistake, I thought I was in the otf because this thread is bullshit. Makes sense now though, sorry.

If you have nothing valid to contribute thats relevent to the topic then leave.

Originally posted by FeceMan
We don't care.

Either do they.

Originally posted by Secretus
Either do they.
I asked you nicely to stop.

Reported.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I asked you nicely to stop.

Reported.

Tell them I'm wearing a thong. Kthx, Eclipso.

You're not allowed to micromanage your threads, Starhawk. Get over it.

No but I am allowed to report spam. In the GDF you have to stay on topic.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No but I am allowed to report spam. In the GDF you have to stay on topic. Have to?

You are sorely mistaken

i never have any canadians act like they're better than me because of where im from....except you...so im indifferent to the situation. you're acting like its the last straw, zomgmelodrama. yeah, it sucks and the topic is valid, but...

Originally posted by FeceMan
We don't care.

im afraid he's right. thank these people for bumping the thread for you because its the only activity it will see imho.

I actually do care about this topic and we all should show some concern because this is about the world we live in.

I'm guessing a lot of us do not know what the Kyoto Protocol is. I would explain but it is late. Here is a link that gives a short synopsis:

Kyoto Protocol

The only reason to abandon this environmental project would be money. All these things are achievable, but this is about capital and nothing else.

Maybe I'll explain more later if people need it but I am tired.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Again do not spam the topic. Speak to the issue or do not post. Originally posted by Starhawk
Don't spam my topics, this isn't the OTF. Originally posted by Starhawk
If you have nothing valid to contribute thats relevent to the topic then leave. Originally posted by Starhawk
I asked you nicely to stop.

Reported. Originally posted by Starhawk
No but I am allowed to report spam. In the GDF you have to stay on topic.

Five off-topic posts. Reported. Live what you preach, nigga.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Ladies and Men,

I am ashamed to be a Canadian today, our Government has rejected the kyoto accords and refused to adhere to restrictions which could help save the environment because they are unwilling to accept that the economy would have to take a hit in order to fulfill them.

This is an example of the classic situation of whats more important? Your money or your life? In this case they have chosen money.

The only good side to this is that it will most likely cost the conservatives the next election. Due to the fact that if they don't enact the restrictions, then the public will slam them for putting the final nail in the economy. If they do then they plan to pass the costs onto the people in the form of drastically higher energy bills which people could not pay and would result in them being voted out.

I think the UN needs to enact sanctions against my country until they accept their responsibilities to aid in preventing the complete collapse of the environment given that we are one of the world's leading polluters.

I think this is something the nations of the world need to get involved in, because what we are doing to the environment will effect everyone around the globe.

I have never been this ashamed of my country before.

Good for Canada, it's idiotic to to severely disable your economy because of a unproven hysteria issue...

We abandoned it because we couldn't do what it asked.

Shit happens, stop bitching.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I smell a conservative. Whats unreasonable is letting the environment crash and burn in order to make the country richer. There are things we can do to absorb the cost. Reduce government salaries, cut expense accounts to politicians. Increase the taxes to the super rich and cut out the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying taxes. No, we should abandon the Kyoto Accord because it doesn't work. Since you ignored the part about Alberta I'll assume that you are from Eastern Canada doing the ole segregation of the West trick. Alberta alone makes the Kyoto Accord infeasible. I very strongly believe in the need for environmental reform, but Kyoto is definitely not the way to do it.

We should do most of the things you mentioned anyways, however, that will be far from enough money to do anything with.

And just for fun I'm going to call you a communist because you believe the super rich should get taxed more simply for being more successful. Commy.

I have to agree with Canada here, as long as it isn't proven that humans actually have an impact it would be a waste to destroy the economy...

The only reason country's take measures now is because of the mass hysteria the public created about the environment, I seriously doubt any politician really knows what it is humans are doing and how much damage it does...

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, we should abandon the Kyoto Accord because it doesn't work. Since you ignored the part about Alberta I'll assume that you are from Eastern Canada doing the ole segregation of the West trick. Alberta alone makes the Kyoto Accord infeasible. I very strongly believe in the need for environmental reform, but Kyoto is definitely not the way to do it.

We should do most of the things you mentioned anyways, however, that will be far from enough money to do anything with.

And just for fun I'm going to call you a communist because you believe the super rich should get taxed more simply for being more successful. Commy. Just for fun.
http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gif

Bardock has it right. People seem to think that 'not wanting to take a hit to the economy' is all about a tiny minority in big mansions sitting on big piles of money saying "BWAHAHAHA! I am glad the planet is dying because I have all the money!"

It's not. A hit to the economy is something that buggers up the lives of many, many people- it;s not the rich, it's often the poor that get hit the hardest by this kind of thinbg. It's manual labour jobs that get hit, and lost employment opportunities that result, and then that's people not being able to afford to feed their families, or living on the street. People seem to forget just how damn important the economy actually is.

Kyoto is a pile of crap. Entirely aside from the unproven nature of the environmental issues (panic about which does indeed border on the hysterical), it's rubbish precisely because it's not inclusive. Any environmental initiative of this sort has to be TRULY gllobal and Kyoto is not.

Fact of the matter is, nothing we say or do is going to stop China and India (who will become, by far, the largest contributors to environemental issues) going through a process of mass industrialisation. Oh, they can sign Kyoto know all they want- because we've put in a clause saying that 'developing' countries don't actually have to do anything. So signing it is an entirely empty gesture from such countries. As soon as the rich, comfortable west tries to tell these countries to cut back on such development just to please our environmental tastes at their expense, they'll tell us to piss off.

We need a treaty that a. works and b. that everyone can work with. THEN we can start to talk about whether it is worth the cosr or not.

Right now, Kyoto is like the Emperor's New Clothes. No-one dare point out that, basically, there's bugger all to it, but they seem to want to shell out the money for it all the same, even though it's the person in the street that ends up paying.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton University, in an email interview:

"Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but its importance has been grossly exaggerated.

It is far less important than other social problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, deforestation, extinction of species on land and in the sea, not to mention war, nuclear weapons and biological weapons.

We do not know whether the observed climate changes are on balance good or bad for the health of the biosphere. And the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a fertilizer of plant growth are at least as important as its effects on climate."

I remember reading an article in the Economist a year back or whatever, talking about estimating costs associated with plans like kyoto vs the costs of not doing anything. Not to beat a dead horse, but obviously they found kyoto to be abysmally expensive. The interesting finding is that Canada may stand to gain money economically with a little bit of global warming. Certain trends may make for better living/farming conditions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

We need a treaty that a. works and b. that everyone can work with. THEN we can start to talk about whether it is worth the cosr or not.


Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol is not going to "kill" the economy. Everything it is asking is doable and not really going to just hurt anyone too much economically. We can produce the same amount of exports even after cutting back emissions but it cost money to do so which means the industrialized nations who emit the most (U.S., Australia, and now Canada) do not want to. There are ways to all but stop ALL emissions but it cost corporations money and so you know how that goes.

Hell, they do not even mind killing Native Americans on the basis of "risk assessments" (which basically is an equation to see how much you are affecting the environment i.e. how many Native Americans you are killing.)

You did bring up a very good point though - the poor normally get hit the hardest because of the industrialization of many manual labor jobs, but consider this: if you had to cut back emissions, manual labor would be necessary (easiest example being the coal industry). Of course, corporations do not want to bother the easiest part of profit to control is labor (which normally also includes health packages, unions and so on) which is why globalization is such a big deal.

I personally think the Kyoto Protocol is a shitty idea but for a reason other than money. It is a paradox. It encourages industrialization (and tells all "non developed" nations that can emit all that want with no penalty, but those who stay under a certain level get some sort of money bonus) and even if ALL countries sign the treaty and abide by it, at some point the "non developed" nation-states will end up emitting just as much, if not more, hazardous elements as we have floating around now. It is a dumb idea to try and solve the problem this way.

Damn you Bardock42, you stole my line. shakefist

Originally posted by chithappens
Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol is not going to "kill" the economy. Everything it is asking is doable and not really going to just hurt anyone too much economically. We can produce the same amount of exports even after cutting back emissions but it cost money to do so which means the industrialized nations who emit the most (U.S., Australia, and now Canada) do not want to. There are ways to all but stop ALL emissions but it cost corporations money and so you know how that goes.

Hell, they do not even mind killing Native Americans on the basis of "risk assessments" (which basically is an equation to see how much you are affecting the environment i.e. how many Native Americans you are killing.)

You did bring up a very good point though - the poor normally get hit the hardest because of the industrialization of many manual labor jobs, but consider this: if you had to cut back emissions, manual labor would be necessary (easiest example being the coal industry). Of course, corporations do not want to bother the easiest part of profit to control is labor (which normally also includes health packages, unions and so on) which is why globalization is such a big deal.

I personally think the Kyoto Protocol is a shitty idea but for a reason other than money. It is a paradox. It encourages industrialization (and tells all "non developed" nations that can emit all that want with no penalty, but those who stay under a certain level get some sort of money bonus) and even if ALL countries sign the treaty and abide by it, at some point the "non developed" nation-states will end up emitting just as much, if not more, hazardous elements as we have floating around now. It is a dumb idea to try and solve the problem this way.

For once I find myself mostly agreeing with Chitthappens here. It would not kill the economy if the politicians were willing to do their part to help pay for it. I.E roll back MP and MPP wages instead of increasing them. Dalton McGunity, the less then honorable premier of Ontario, has raised up MPP wages twice in about a span of a year. Cut back on expense accounts which most of them abuse anyways. And raise taxes on those wages above a million. We CAN pay for this.

People need to stop pretending the environment is a non-issue, scientists across the world agree that our environment is collapsing. One example, in North America, bees seem to be steadily reducing in numbers. Why is this important? Bees pollinate the plants, without bees we lose plants and then animals that feed on plants. I'm not a science whiz, but even I understand how a food chain works.

If it was as simple as raising prices, Harper would've done so, but he knows if they tried to raise up prices that high, the majority of Canadians couldn't pay them and would protest and his Government would be held to blame in the polls.

And if you want to talk about cost, reports from health Canada state that cancer will soon overtake heart disease as the number one killer in our country. Imagine when more and more people are developing it due to UV exposure, I wonder what the cost burden to our healthcare system is.

Reactive instead of pro-active when it matters and not ballooning their pockets... that's all it is

Global warming and depletion of the ozone layer are two separate issues.

Originally posted by Starhawk
For once I find myself mostly agreeing with Chitthappens here. It would not kill the economy if the politicians were willing to do their part to help pay for it. I.E roll back MP and MPP wages instead of increasing them. Dalton McGunity, the less then honorable premier of Ontario, has raised up MPP wages twice in about a span of a year. Cut back on expense accounts which most of them abuse anyways. And raise taxes on those wages above a million. We CAN pay for this.

http://theburningbiscuit.com/WeeklyExplanation.htm

Read that, it's a funny example. And actually quite true. Taxing the richer people more and reducing a few salaries will just end up hurting you in the end.



http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle

Watch that... It isn't as black and white as people might think



The money being invested in stopping global warming, a theory which hasn't even been proven true yet, could easily be enough to find cures for Aids, cancer and come closer to a real alternative for oil.

All of Africa could probably get schools, electricity and a growing economy from the money now invested in a theory...

That's what the money should be used for, helping country's in Africa or investing in your own economy, not in an unproven theory.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Global warming and depletion of the ozone layer are two separate issues.

No one has directly said global warming. Regardless of believing global warming or not, humans ARE the cause of it one way or another and I am certain you can attribute that to pollution.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Global warming and depletion of the ozone layer are two separate issues.


Still stating the bloody obvious, the kid hasn't a clue, I can't believe you haven't realised most of them haven't X.

Originally posted by chithappens
No one has directly said global warming. Regardless of believing global warming or not, humans ARE the cause of it one way or another and I am certain you can attribute that to pollution. I'm not sure exactly what you just said. Whether there is a global warming effect is clear, and whether human behaviour is a factor in it is relatively clear iirc, but whether human industrialization is the principal factor in global warming is the uncertain thing.

"Global warming causes cancer" is news to me.

Originally posted by chithappens
No one has directly said global warming. Regardless of believing global warming or not, humans ARE the cause of it one way or another and I am certain you can attribute that to pollution.

Watch the video I posted, if you don't believe it then please post some prove as to why not...

Originally posted by Islamic_Cleric
Still stating the bloody obvious, the kid hasn't a clue, I can't believe you haven't realised most of them haven't X. Having fun I see. It's a rarity we agree. No reason not to be cordial I suppose. Hope all is well.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Global warming causes cancer" is news to me.


Do you really enjoy making points against fools like that?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Having fun I see. It's a rarity we agree. No reason not to be cordial I suppose. Hope all is well.

I am always having fun X. All is reasonble. When have we really disagreed since you started to understand little you say matters on a forum. I have noticed you have started looking for others reactions more and more.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
but whether human industrialization is the principal factor in global warming is the uncertain thing.

"Global warming causes cancer" is news to me.

What other factors are there in ozone depletion since human industrialization is not the "principal" one?

That quote did not say global warming causes cancer... radiation exposure from holes in the ozone is the problem. Nice reading comprehension

Originally posted by Fishy
http://theburningbiscuit.com/WeeklyExplanation.htm

Read that, it's a funny example. And actually quite true. Taxing the richer people more and reducing a few salaries will just end up hurting you in the end.

That is funny, more because its ludicrous. Believe me, we will have ample supply of politician's regardless if we reduce their wages or not. And the rich are not going to abandon the country if they are taxed slightly more. You think Canada has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world? If the only thing keeping them here was low tax rates they would've left already.

Originally posted by chithappens
Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol is not going to "kill" the economy. Everything it is asking is doable and not really going to just hurt anyone too much economically. We can produce the same amount of exports even after cutting back emissions but it cost money to do so which means the industrialized nations who emit the most (U.S., Australia, and now Canada) do not want to. There are ways to all but stop ALL emissions but it cost corporations money and so you know how that goes.

Hell, they do not even mind killing Native Americans on the basis of "risk assessments" (which basically is an equation to see how much you are affecting the environment i.e. how many Native Americans you are killing.)

You did bring up a very good point though - the poor normally get hit the hardest because of the industrialization of many manual labor jobs, but consider this: if you had to cut back emissions, manual labor would be necessary (easiest example being the coal industry). Of course, corporations do not want to bother the easiest part of profit to control is labor (which normally also includes health packages, unions and so on) which is why globalization is such a big deal.

I personally think the Kyoto Protocol is a shitty idea but for a reason other than money. It is a paradox. It encourages industrialization (and tells all "non developed" nations that can emit all that want with no penalty, but those who stay under a certain level get some sort of money bonus) and even if ALL countries sign the treaty and abide by it, at some point the "non developed" nation-states will end up emitting just as much, if not more, hazardous elements as we have floating around now. It is a dumb idea to try and solve the problem this way.

First of all, I never said 'kill' the economy, but it definitely WILL hurt it, and it will be the average person that suffers, not the corporations- and this is for two reasons.

a. All these enivironmental initiatives stifle the job market

b. Corporation costs get passed onto consumers

The idea that politicians should take the entire hit is utterly ludicrous in so many ways... I can't believe anyone would float such an idea.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think cutting back on emissions will CREATE jobs. It will cost jobs, and for that reason alone, people will oppose it once consequences become clear.

As for the rest, I agree. Kyoto just does not work. It is not practical, it harms economies, and it does not even achieve what it purports to do.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That is funny, more because its ludicrous. Believe me, we will have ample supply of politician's regardless if we reduce their wages or not. And the rich are not going to abandon the country if they are taxed slightly more. You think Canada has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world? If the only thing keeping them here was low tax rates they would've left already.

You think that the best politicians in Canada will stay in politics if their salary goes down, sure a few idealistic politicians might, the most won't.

As for taxing the rich, it's a simple fact that rich people like places with less taxes more then they like places with high taxes. It's why a lot of rich people go over the border, it saves them a lot of money. Happens here all the time, could just as easily happen in Canada. Probably already does.

If they pass it onto the consumer, the consumer wont be able to pay it. In my city last year they tried to increase the hydro rates and people protested to such an extent that they scrapped the idea.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If they pass it onto the consumer, the consumer wont be able to pay it. In my city last year they tried to increase the hydro rates and people protested to such an extent that they scrapped the idea.

So now you are arguing against yourself?

Originally posted by Fishy
You think that the best politicians in Canada will stay in politics if their salary goes down, sure a few idealistic politicians might, the most won't.

As for taxing the rich, it's a simple fact that rich people like places with less taxes more then they like places with high taxes. It's why a lot of rich people go over the border, it saves them a lot of money. Happens here all the time, could just as easily happen in Canada. Probably already does.

Yes they will stay in politics, due to the fact that even if we reduce their salaries, they will still be making more then enough to make it worth while, plus, many people are just drawn to power. And whats wrong with having idealistic politicians?

No places in Europe have much lower tax rates then Canada and I've yet to see this great exodus of rich people.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, I never said 'kill' the economy, but it definitely WILL hurt it, and it will be the average person that suffers, not the corporations- and this is for two reasons.

a. All these enivironmental initiatives stifle the job market

b. Corporation costs get passed onto consumers

The idea that politicians should take the entire hit is utterly ludicrous in so many ways... I can't believe anyone would float such an idea.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think cutting back on emissions will CREATE jobs. It will cost jobs, and for that reason alone, people will oppose it once consequences become clear.

As for the rest, I agree. Kyoto just does not work. It is not practical, it harms economies, and it does not even achieve what it purports to do.

By kill, I did not mean destroy. It was a hyperbole and I don't feel like using my vocabulary at all because I am still studying for finals so my bad.

The cost (at least on my outlook) are about environmental injustices that need to be righted. There are a bunch of reasons this makes sense even just in terms of harming people. Native American reserves are the easiest example with the PCBs that spill out in the water, soil, and air.

Yes, corporation costs get passed onto consumers but their should be a ceiling for it similar to real estate (not imposed a lot of places, I know but just work with me). The government could do something about that but there are kickbacks everywhere.

I'm not saying that it will be that simple to return jobs. This is just saying the act would do it, but notice I also mentioned that corporations are all about controlling the amount they spend on labor which is why globalization is in full swing and we get so much stuff made in Malaysia, Taiwan, China, etc. There are two options in regardless to cutting emissions:

1) go back to manual labor which has offers little to no emissions(not going to happen)

2) add more machines (cost a hell of a lot more initially) and technical professionals and cut the rest of the laborers

I noticed #2 and mentioned it but I didn't want to write another essay on that.

Originally posted by Islamic_Cleric
I am always having fun X. All is reasonble. When have we really disagreed since you started to understand little you say matters on a forum. I have noticed you have started looking for others reactions more and more. It's nice you take such a keen interest in me I suppose.Originally posted by chithappens
What other factors are there in ozone depletion since human industrialization is not the "principal" one?

That quote did not say global warming causes cancer... radiation exposure from holes in the ozone is the problem. Nice reading comprehension Good grief. Irony. Did I say that human industrialization wasn't the cause of ozone depletion? No. I said that whether human industrialization was the principal cause of global warming was an uncertainty. Halogen hydrocarbon emissions were the major cause for ozone depletion; the Montreal Protocol prohibited and restricted their production and use - ergo the current decline in CFCs and slow recovery of the Ozone layer. There's a linkage between stratospheric cooling, which would occur with global warming, and ozone depletion, but by and large they're separate issues.

Linking the Kyoto protocol, based on uncertain premise that human behaviour is the principal factor in global warming and that global warming has a relatively tenuous link to ozone depletion, to cancer rates due to UV exposure is erroneous. Stating that Canada not adopting Kyoto protocol will be a burden to it's healthcare system by a massive increase in UV related melanoma, when it contributes less than 2% of CO2 emissions while already non-compliant countries the U.S., Australia, India and China contribute 45%, is erroneous.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's nice you take such a keen interest in me I suppose.

You have always been one of the few posters here with a level of intelligence that would eventually allow you to see that the real fun of forums like this is the stupidity of them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot


Linking the Kyoto protocol, based on uncertain premise that human behaviour is the principal factor in global warming and that global warming has a relatively tenuous link to ozone depletion, to cancer rates due to UV exposure is erroneous. Stating that Canada not adopting Kyoto protocol will be a burden to it's healthcare system by a massive increase in UV related melanoma, when it contributes less than 2% of CO2 emissions while already non-compliant countries the U.S., Australia, India and China contribute 45%, is erroneous.

In all of this you still never answer me... what other factors are their other than any sort of human activity?

Originally posted by chithappens
In all of this you still never answer me... what other factors are their other than any sort of human activity?

Temperature fluctuations are common throughout history ****tard do some research instead of asking all the time.

Its not just temperature fluctuations and even Bush and the Republicans have admitted global warming is real.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Its not just temperature fluctuations and even Bush and the Republicans have admitted global warming is real.

I wanna c that quote . Never seen them say that and would surprise me

Ill find it for you. LOL I wonder what it will take for everyone to accept it Chit, is it goona get to the point where they walk outside and start smelling like bacon before they grasp that its real?

I suppose so. I feel sorry for the kids. I really do

Originally posted by chithappens
In all of this you still never answer me... what other factors are their other than any sort of human activity?

carbon emissions and gases make up about 2% of the greenhouse gases

human contribution to that I believe is less than 50%

so humans contribute less than 1% of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming

the most common greenhouse gas is water vapor, which comes from, you guessed it, NATURAL WATER SOURCES.

Originally posted by chithappens
I wanna c that quote . Never seen them say that and would surprise me

They did admit it if I remember correctly it was because of the near extinction of polar bears.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
They did admit it if I remember correctly it was because of the near extinction of polar bears.

Which isn't going to hurt us anywhere near as bad as the near extinction of bees.

I'm actually amazed no-one's brought up the statistic that says even if we obliterate the industrial world tomorrow, it would take 100 years or so for all that we've put up there to come back down.

Well, if you're a honey fan then I suppose it would hurt, yeah.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, if you're a honey fan then I suppose it would hurt, yeah.

Bees do much more then make honey. Do you like having plants much?

Originally posted by Starhawk
Bees do much more then make honey. Do you like having plants much?

I don't believe they are becoming extinct, where I live there's absolutely loads of them.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't believe they are becoming extinct, where I live there's absolutely loads of them.

Globally the numbers are shrinking rapidly.

They make up less than 2% (you didn't finish the sentence so I will here) ... in the Earth's atmosphere, not greenhouse gases (let us provide links if we will dispute numbers further). Proportion does not mean anything. The majority of any person's body mass is water but put a whole pound of rat poison down their throat and they will be overkilled about 30 times. Proportion of something does not mean it is not harmful.

Carbon emissions are not the only things trying to be cut down but they are the most commonly known. Water vapor has no eroding affect on anything so there was no point in naming that.

You mean to tell me that the climate levels and holes in the ozone (in the most simple examples) rise exponentially in the past century and it humans only play a small part in this?

Industrial revolution just happened to pop @ around the same time. Coincidence indeed.

do you have a better reference than Bill Maher for that Starhawk?

And the lack of distinction between global warming and ozone depletion continues unabated...

Hilarious really as the ozone layer is actually repairing itself.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Hilarious really as the ozone layer is actually repairing itself.

WHAT??? Where did you hear that? Please prove that.

Originally posted by chithappens
No one has directly said global warming. Regardless of believing global warming or not, humans ARE the cause of it one way or another and I am certain you can attribute that to pollution. No. the sun is the cause of Global Warming.

Originally posted by Starhawk
WHAT??? Where did you hear that? Please prove that.

Since Chlorofluorocarbon (and other chlorines) production/use has been severely regulated, the ozone is doing what it does naturally, repair itself. Rather slowly though, since CFC's linger for some time in the atmosphere.

As noted though, is the topic "Global Warming" or "Ozone Depletion"?

The topic is Canada's refusal to comply with Kyoto and the environmental damage we are doing to the planet.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I smell a conservative. Whats unreasonable is letting the environment crash and burn in order to make the country richer. There are things we can do to absorb the cost. Reduce government salaries, cut expense accounts to politicians. Increase the taxes to the super rich and cut out the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying taxes.

That's ****ing ridiculous, taxes should be adjusted fairly, not arbitrarily raised against only the rich.

That and Canada is already outlawing the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, that alone will do so much.
Obviously there's more to be done but it's a start.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The topic is Canada's refusal to comply with Kyoto and the environmental damage we are doing to the planet.

Canada? Doing damage to anything? Retard.

Originally posted by silver_tears
That's ****ing ridiculous, taxes should be adjusted fairly, not arbitrarily raised against only the rich.

That and Canada is already outlawing the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, that alone will do so much.
Obviously there's more to be done but it's a start.

No it's not, it will only reduce emissions by 2 percent, and the bulbs they are selling cannot be thrown out in the trash due to the liquid magnesium in them. CBC did a whole report on this.

And yes, the rich can afford to help more and will not be severely effected by a tax increase the way the poor would.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The topic is Canada's refusal to comply with Kyoto and the environmental damage we are doing to the planet.

and you're linking that refusal with UV radiation (cancer) becoming the number one killer, when the ozone is currently repairing itself of past damages. fear

Originally posted by silver_tears
That's ****ing ridiculous, taxes should be adjusted fairly, not arbitrarily raised against only the rich.

That and Canada is already outlawing the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012, that alone will do so much.
Obviously there's more to be done but it's a start.

And yet you should not impose proportional tax to the rich and the poor. Sales tax are a perfect example.

Environment's fine.

Stop watching 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

Originally posted by Starhawk
And yes, the rich can afford to help more and will not be severely effected by a tax increase the way the poor would. Commie.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Commie.

LOL no I have several Right Wing beliefs. But what I said was true.

I believe you. However, I disagree that the rich should be taxed more heavily than the poor. Kyoto was bad, environmental reform is good. The Kyoto accord won't reduce gas emissions. All it does is put money into the hands of the poorer nations that will use it to industrialize and pollute. Besides that, China, India and the US are not apart of it, meaning that it cannot have a major effect.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Commie.

I'm neither here nor there with global warming, and there are people here who know a lot more about it, so I'm not going to act like an authority on the matter, but I agree with what's been said regarding actions being taken.

Global warming seems to be a factually existing phenomenon to the point that it's a concern, but I honestly don't believe countries should be putting their economies in jeopardy for something that might not even require such a sacrifice. If global warming needs action taken against it, good, there are ways that are already being worked and used, but this whole hysteria about there being no ice in the arctic or everything being underwater, it's not making me afraid, it's making me laugh.

Originally posted by BackFire
Environment's fine.

Stop watching 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

I still find it amazing that anyone takes that movie with massive seriousness.

-AC

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL no I have several Right Wing beliefs. But what I said was true. Actually Commie doesn't mean leftie. Because as you surely know, most communist governments are authoritarian (like you )

Originally posted by inimalist
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gifhttp://www.bobandgeorge.com/Subcomics/Plague/Images/EvilRan2.gif It's hypnotic, no?

I think that if we combined our minds we could resurrect Senator MacArthur... that would be interesting...

They can afford to burden the cost in taxes better then anyone else so they need to step up and do their part.

They proportionally do their part. Anything over that is charity, which is something I think is lacking, but should be up to the person, otherwise it is that cursed communism again.

Originally posted by Nellinator
They proportionally do their part. Anything over that is charity, which is something I think is lacking, but should be up to the person, otherwise it is that cursed communism again.

No they don't their is so many loop holes written into the tax laws they end up paying nowhere near their share. Perhaps what we need to do then is fix our tax laws and remove those loopholes.

Originally posted by Nellinator
They proportionally do their part. Anything over that is charity, which is something I think is lacking, but should be up to the person, otherwise it is that cursed communism again.

Actually you need a class in politics, Asking for an increase in taxes to the rich is NOT communism. It may be scratching the surface of socialism a bit, but it is NOT communism.

Communism would be if I asked that everyone make the same wage no matter what they do. See communism deals in extremes like that which is one of the reasons it doesn't work, the other being human nature.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No they don't their is so many loop holes written into the tax laws they end up paying nowhere near their share. Perhaps what we need to do then is fix our tax laws and remove those loopholes.

The rich still pay far more taxes then the poor, that's just how it works... Most money however comes from the middle class as they make up the largest part of the society. If you want to get more money, you should tax them more and forget about the rest...

Those people can't leave the country to work somewhere else or buy a house in an other country and pay taxes there anyways.

Originally posted by Fishy
Most money however comes from the middle class as they make up the largest part of the society. If you want to get more money, you should tax them more and forget about the rest...

Those people can't leave the country to work somewhere else or buy a house in an other country and pay taxes there anyways.

chair No

Im not even sure if it clear cut that C02 is causing Global warming.

CO2 is not even near the most problematic element... You guys just watch corporate videos on ozone deletion?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot


How can you be so obtuse when global warming is causing cancer through ozone depletion! Have some compassion man; tax the rich, make them fix it!

Originally posted by Robtard
How can you be so obtuse when global warming is causing cancer through ozone depletion! Have some compassion man; tax the rich, make them fix it!

The rich benefit from a healthy environment as much as anyone. And they are much more able to help out without suffering then the middle or poorer classes.

And as I said we need to eliminate the tax loopholes that allow the rich to escape paying what they should.

Originally posted by BackFire
Environment's fine.

Stop watching 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

wtf? Thats foolish to simply pass off the enviroment as "fine". It may be better off then some people say, but it is certaintly not "fine".

Environmental awareness is always nonexistent/fine until it damn near kills you. Then it is a big deal suddenly

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
wtf? Thats foolish to simply pass off the enviroment as "fine". It may be better off then some people say, but it is certaintly not "fine".

It is fine.

The problems that are occuring aren't massive enough to really make any difference.

It's a bunch of BS hysteria.

On the simplest example, what do you know about Native American reserves in the Midwest and Great Lakes?

They are quite beautiful. Especially the ones Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Reserves or lakes?

Originally posted by chithappens
Reserves or lakes?

Reservations.

Mind naming which one. I'm just curious. Read through a bunch of case studies of those reservations.

Starhawk disgraces himself on KMC.

News at 11:00?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's hypnotic, no?

haha

its like the marxist mega man

I just sent my taxes in today and there weren't any loopholes for me

Originally posted by Nellinator
I just sent my taxes in today and there weren't any loopholes for me

No only for the rich I'm afraid and we have studied tax laws in class, i can't believe how much they can write off.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No only for the rich I'm afraid and we have studied tax laws in class, i can't believe how much they can write off.

So...we shouldn't tax them more, we should just not let them uneccesarily write stuff off, eh?

lol some people just like to complain.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The rich benefit from a healthy environment as much as anyone. And they are much more able to help out without suffering then the middle or poorer classes.

And as I said we need to eliminate the tax loopholes that allow the rich to escape paying what they should.

You really need to stick to a stance, instead of constantly shifty it to keep up as people punch holes in your rhetoric...

First it was "the rich should pay more because they're rich!", basically punishing people for being successful... now it's "get ride of loopholes".

Originally posted by Starhawk
No only for the rich I'm afraid and we have studied tax laws in class, i can't believe how much they can write off.
Since you studied taxes too, why don't you enlighten us...



The Tax Paying Minority

If the tax forms you're filing this year show Uncle Sam entitled to any income tax, you increasingly stand alone. The income tax system is so bad, and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40% of the country's households -- more than 44 million adults -- pay no income taxes at all. Not a penny.

Think of it this way. After dropping off your tax forms at the Post Office, you find 100 people standing on the sidewalk. Forty of them will be excused from paying income taxes thanks to Congress. Twenty of them, the middle class, will pay barely a thing. The 40 people who remain, the upper middle class and the wealthy, will pay nearly all of the income taxes.

Look at that crowd again and find the richest person there. That individual will pay 37% of all the income taxes owed by those 100 people. The 10 richest people in the crowd will pay 71% of the income-tax bill. The 40 most successful people will pay 99% of everyone's income taxes. Yet for some lawmakers in Washington, these taxpayers aren't paying enough. Our tax system comes up short in a lot of areas. It doesn't foster economic growth. It isn't very simple. And it certainly isn't fair. The one place where it does excel is at redistributing income.


According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40%) pay 99.1% of all income taxes, the taxes that support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for example, fund the federal portion of transportation, education, environmental and welfare spending.

Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10%, paid 70.8% of all income taxes, an increase from their share of 48.1% in 1979. Think about it. Ten percent pay seven out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising.

And those super-rich one percenters? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster.

In 1979, the first year of the study, these affluent individuals made 9.3% of the nation's income and they paid 18.3% of the country's income tax. In 2004, these fortunate few made 16.3% of the nation's income but their share of the income tax burden leaped to 36.7%. Think about that. One percent take in less than 17% of the country's income, but pay almost 37% of the country's income tax.

As for the middle class, CBO reports they make 13.9% of the nation's income and their share of the nation's income tax dropped to 4.7%. In 1979, they made 15.8% of the nation's income and paid 10.7% of the nation's income tax.

The combination of across the board marginal income tax rate cuts and repeated expansions of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for lower-income Americans has created this situation in which fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of the income tax. When President Bush in 2001 cut the lowest tax rate to 10% from 15%, several million additional workers were excused from paying any income tax. Raising top rates, as Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton did in 1990 and 1993, also shifted the burden to a smaller group of Americans.

The EITC program redistributes money from those who pay income taxes to 22 million families and individuals with incomes less than $36,348. These workers not only don't have to pay any income tax, they're given a government check as a subsidy to help make ends meet. The EITC is also designed to relieve them of the cost of paying for their share of Social Security and Medicare.

If Republicans, including their presidential candidates, wonder why their calls for tax relief don't resonate like they used to, it's because there aren't that many income taxpayers left. They've been taken off the rolls.

As for the Democrats, they historically have raised taxes and redistributed income as a core philosophy. It doesn't matter to them how much money some people pay -- the argument is that the wealthy can always pay more. According to this point of view, it's immaterial that the tax code is highly progressive; it can always be made more progressive. While raising taxes on the few to benefit the many might be a political winner, it's an increasingly risky policy to pursue.

If, as now happens, 60% of the people in our democracy can force 40% to pay the bills, what's to stop 65% from making 35% pay it all? Since no one wants to pay taxes, what's to stop 90% of people in a democracy from making 10% pay it all? Or why not let 99% of the country off the hook, as long as the remaining 1% picks up the tab?

The problem is that there is a tipping point after which piling taxes onto the rich will leave the government unable to meet its obligations. And perhaps we're already reaching that point, where most people won't have a serious stake in what the government does because they don't pay for it. They want services and benefits, but they don't pay the price. That's a formula for runaway spending and no accountability. In other words, a system that looks a lot like the one we already have.

This can't last forever. When government revenues derive mostly from the wealthy, the fortunes of a few determine the fate of us all. Surpluses and deficits will be driven less by the economic strength of the country, and more by the gains made by the rich in hedge funds, mutual funds, equities and stock options. Like a spinning top that twirls on a narrow point, the top will stay up so long as it continues to go round. Once it slows down it falls, and the government's main source of tax revenue will plunge with it.

What a Catch-22. Members of Congress who want to fund antipoverty programs will have to hope the rich get richer, because the wealthy will need to make more to pay for all the federal programs.

The usual rebuttal made by those who support raising top rates is that lower income Americans pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and therefore need "relief." Of course they pay these taxes. But then, they alone get a good return on their money.

Top earners, on the other hand, pay payroll taxes so their money can be redistributed to others. According to the CBO study, the top 20% of workers, those with incomes over $64,300, pay 44.2% of the payroll tax while the bottom 20%, those who make less than $17,300, pay 4.2%. In return, when it's time to retire, lower-income workers typically receive more in Social Security benefits than they paid in, while the wealthy, who paid the most in taxes, simply can't live long enough to get back what they paid. For much of the middle class and the wealthy, Social Security isn't a retirement program -- it's another program that redistributes their income.

As for Medicare, it doesn't matter that the rich paid far more in taxes; all recipients receive the same benefits. Think of it this way. If Medicare were a car, its price for a low-income worker would be $145 and its price for a millionaire would be $14,500, even though it's the very same car.

Here's why. A taxpayer who makes $1 million a year pays $14,500 in Medicare taxes while a worker who makes $10,000 a year pays $145. But when they retire and visit their doctors or go to the hospital, Medicare reimburses both an equal amount of money. That's a pretty big redistribution of income and a pretty good deal for the low-income worker.

At the end of the day, everyone in this county is in it together. We have an obligation to help the neediest among us and the wealthy should pay more. But a system in which almost half the country pays no income taxes and 40% pay all the income tax has gone too far. Instead of raising taxes and punishing the successful by making them pay even more, it's time to junk the current system and start anew with a code that fosters economic growth for all, not increased redistribution of income for some.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117668220910270761.html?<br%20/><br%20/>The%20Taxpaying%20Minority<br%20/><br%20/>mod=opinion_main_commentaries


Originally posted by FeceMan
Starhawk disgraces himself on KMC.

News at 11:00?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So...we shouldn't tax them more, we should just not let them uneccesarily write stuff off, eh?

I would be happy with ethier option, or both.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No only for the rich I'm afraid and we have studied tax laws in class, i can't believe how much they can write off. I'm in the top tax bracket, I couldn't write anything off. It is very stupid that people that make between $72 756 and $118 285 have the a lower 26% federal tax rate than the 29% that those that make over $118 285 have.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I would be happy with ethier option, or both. I agree...a good flat tax where everyone pays their fair share sounds great.

Looks like Americas hat is getting dirty.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree...a good flat tax where everyone pays their fair share sounds great.

Well I don't feel sorry about taxing those that can absorb the extra cost and not even notice it really. Rather then putting a burden on those that could starve or lose their homes over it. I am in a fairly high bracket myself, and I have no problem doing extra to help out. It's called civic responsibility.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Well I don't feel sorry about taxing those that can absorb the extra cost and not even notice it really. Rather then putting a burden on those that could starve or lose their homes over it. I am in a fairly high bracket myself, and I have no problem doing extra to help out. It's called civic responsibility.

And it should be for everyone. People can't just live for free because they are incompetent. Makes no sense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And it should be for everyone. People can't just live for free because they are incompetent. Makes no sense.

That is an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say.

So your saying all poor and disabled people are incompetent? Not everyone can become rich. Not everyone has the same advantages growing up. Not everyone can AFFORD college or university.

Sorry if people making piles of cash have to pay a little more that they wont even notice.

So in your system how much money you have determines your value?

Originally posted by Starhawk
That is an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say.

So your saying all poor and disabled people are incompetent? Not everyone can become rich. Not everyone has the same advantages growing up. Not everyone can AFFORD college or university.

Sorry if people making piles of cash have to pay a little more that they wont even notice.

So in your system how much money you have determines your value?

Is this really Starhawk?

Yes why?

Originally posted by Starhawk
That is an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say.

So your saying all poor and disabled people are incompetent? Not everyone can become rich. Not everyone has the same advantages growing up. Not everyone can AFFORD college or university.

Sorry if people making piles of cash have to pay a little more that they wont even notice.

So in your system how much money you have determines your value?
Yes.

Dude, it's alright not to make much money if you provide a needed service. Just what rich people do is just way more important to society. You want people that contribute almost nothing already to contribute even less. That's bullshit. Make it fair at least, it is not the duty of the able people to provide for the unable. Even if they had advantages before.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes.

Dude, it's alright not to make much money if you provide a needed service. Just what rich people do is just way more important to society. You want people that contribute almost nothing already to contribute even less. That's bullshit. Make it fair at least, it is not the duty of the able people to provide for the unable. Even if they had advantages before.

I know thinking of someone besides yourself goes against human nature but YES it is their duty. We live in a society and they have a responsibility through taxes to assist with those less fortunate. If I were you I wouldn't sound high and mighty, selfishness is not a virtue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just what rich people do is just way more important to society.

Explore this thought deeper. I don't follow.

Originally posted by chithappens
Explore this thought deeper. I don't follow.

I think he means getting drunk, sleeping with hookers, and hiring some "less" important people to do the real work. LOL

Originally posted by chithappens
Explore this thought deeper. I don't follow.

They get more money because their service is more valued. Whether they are able to pull in business deals with foreign corporations, play enjoyable basketball or invented pocketknifes.

They provide something lots of people want and need. And they do it good or there would be others to do it (in theory). But generally...the person that works at Walmart (and I am not saying there is anything wrong with it) just isn't as important to society as the person that knows where to open Walmarts, how to negotiate with farmers and how to do the logistiscs....

Originally posted by Starhawk
I know thinking of someone besides yourself goes against human nature but YES it is their duty. We live in a society and they have a responsibility through taxes to assist with those less fortunate. If I were you I wouldn't sound high and mighty, selfishness is not a virtue.

Oh hell yes it is.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I know thinking of someone besides yourself goes against human nature but YES it is their duty. We live in a society and they have a responsibility through taxes to assist with those less fortunate. If I were you I wouldn't sound high and mighty, selfishness is not a virtue.

Of course they have a duty, it's the same as everyone else. They shouldn't have to do MORE just because thy're successful, THAT isn't their responsibility. Their responsibility is the same as everyone elses.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh hell yes it is.

LOL it's logic like that which caused the french and russian revolutions.

Rich people are not better then poorer people, they are simply luckier.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course they have a duty, it's the same as everyone else. They shouldn't have to do MORE just because thy're successful, THAT isn't their responsibility. Their responsibility is the same as everyone elses.

Yes they should, for the simply fact that they can do it without suffering. Living in a society means you sometimes have to suck it up and help out when you can.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They get more money because their service is more valued. Whether they are able to pull in business deals with foreign corporations, play enjoyable basketball or invented pocketknifes.

They provide something lots of people want and need. And they do it good or there would be others to do it (in theory). But generally...the person that works at Walmart (and I am not saying there is anything wrong with it) just isn't as important to society as the person that knows where to open Walmarts, how to negotiate with farmers and how to do the logistiscs....

Example: - A labor and delivery nurse is not as important to a society as an NBA player because of money?

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL it's logic like that which caused the french and russian revolutions.

Rich people are not better then poorer people, they are simply luckier.

Hahahahaha

**** you.

**** you.

You should be more grateful to the people that provide you with all you have. I am sure you love your nurses and fireman and they are important...but, there is a reason why they are not in charge of multi-million dollar companies that provide you with cheap and good food and other goods.



The reason is cause they can't. They don't have the ability.

Originally posted by chithappens
Example: - A labor and delivery nurse is not as important to a society as an NBA player because of money?

They are less valued. Not less important necessarily.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes they should, for the simply fact that they can do it without suffering. Living in a society means you sometimes have to suck it up and help out when you can.

They DO help out, just the same as everyone else.

Most rich people help out moreso anyways, as bardock says, but providing goods and services that many people want and need, they shouldn't be obligated to give their money away, too.

That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes they should, for the simply fact that they can do it without suffering. Living in a society means you sometimes have to suck it up and help out when you can.

But apparently only if you are competent and able to produce value.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahahaha

**** you.

**** you.

You should be more grateful to the people that provide you with all you have. I am sure you love your nurses and fireman and they are important...but, there is a reason why they are not in charge of multi-million dollar companies that provide you with cheap and good food and other goods.



The reason is cause they can't. They don't have the ability.

So you are not head of a multi-million dollar company why?

Just want to be sure I follow your logic correctly...

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are less valued. Not less important necessarily.

Are you saying this is "how it should be" or "how it is" or both?

Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL it's logic like that which caused the french and russian revolutions.

Rich people are not better then poorer people, they are simply luckier.

This, right here, it's bullshit.

Luck rarely has something to do with it. Most wealthy people are where they are because they worked their ass off, and now are being rewarded.

Originally posted by chithappens
So you are not head of a multi-million dollar company why?

Just want to be sure I follow your logic correctly...

I would say because I am not good enough. I wouldn't deny there is a lot of corruption, and there is lots wrong with the system. But I am not arrogant enough to pretend that in my situation I would be able to lead such a corporation sufficently. Now, work in a lamp factory...I could do that.

Originally posted by chithappens
Are you saying this is "how it should be" or "how it is" or both? Both

Originally posted by BackFire
This, right here, it's bullshit.

Luck rarely has something to do with it. Most wealthy people are where they are because they worked their ass off, and now are being rewarded.

Now I call bullshit.

Show me a stat for "Most wealthy people are where they are because they worked their ass off, and now are being rewarded."

Originally posted by BackFire
This, right here, it's bullshit.

Luck rarely has something to do with it. Most wealthy people are where they are because they worked their ass off, and now are being rewarded.

No, most of them are where they are cause their parents paid for top notch schools and they didn't have to work for any of it. Then they go out to find jobs and because their parents are well connected they have an easy time doing that too. I know people who have genius level intellect that work 2 jobs and still can't afford university so please don't try to say something like that.

Stat? It's called simple common sense.

You think they were just walking down the street one day, and some guy came up to them and said "HEY! Want a few million bucks? Here you go, oh here's another 10 million too!". No, they worked hard, went to school, had a brilliant idea that other people were willing to pay for, etc. Most started at the bottom and worked their way up. They had ambition and dedication.

Of course, the rich people, like Paris Hilton, who WERE lucky and born into a wealthy family exist, but they are in the minority.

I suggest you read my post above yours.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, most of them are where they are cause their parents paid for top notch schools and they didn't have to work for any of it. Then they go out to find jobs and because their parents are well connected they have an easy time doing that too. I know people who have genius level intellect that work 2 jobs and still can't afford university so please don't try to say something like that.

Even if that's true, which it really isn't. Does that mean that they don't deserve it?

CEO's of multi million or billion dollar corporations deserve their jobs, otherwise they wouldn't have them. They aren't stupid and they make millions because of it. Most rich people are still so called "new rich" they worked for what they got, and they deserve it.

Of course there are exceptions and sure many of them may be arrogant pricks but they still worked hard for it.

Besides if people are really that smart they can ussually get scholarships or something like that. It's just a matter of looking in the right direction, not to mention that if your brilliant it's ussually not that hard to get a job at a company willing to pay for your education... You just have to prove your that good, and if they really are geniuses like you say that shouldn't be to difficult.

You mean the one with a bunch of nonsense?

I read that already. What's the point?

Rich people are rich because their parents gave them help, they still had to work hard to get to that point. You think going to a rich school is easy? They still have to have dedication to pass the classes and such.

Just because some poor people don't have the means to go to school right off the bat means nothing, there are community colleges that are relatively cheap, most anyone can afford. Chances are, whatever problems they have that are stopping them from going to school is a result of their own poor choices in life anyways, like having too many kids and such.

Again, it isn't up to rich people to pay for those mistakes just because they have money.

Originally posted by Fishy
Even if that's true, which it really isn't. Does that mean that they don't deserve it?

CEO's of multi million or billion dollar corporations deserve their jobs, otherwise they wouldn't have them. They aren't stupid and they make millions because of it. Most rich people are still so called "new rich" they worked for what they got, and they deserve it.

Of course there are exceptions and sure many of them may be arrogant pricks but still most of them worked hard for it.

No most of them DO NOT earn it, most of them are handed it to them by their parents. They get jobs from their parents or from friends of their parents. The greed of humanity is probably it's most disgusting feature.

Currently I am getting a Japanese major, English major with an Education minor. This shit ain't easy and I'm working as hard as anyone.

So since I choose majors that will not offer loads of cash I am devalued?