Jump to content

j_b

Members
  • Posts

    7623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by j_b

  1. probably not. there are rumors of our republican congress pondering a resurrection bill
  2. classic strawman argument. nobody argued for increasing poverty in developing nations. say what? depletion of resources and destruction of ecosystems is not "a related problem" but the main topic of discussion in this thread, and despite what your tendencious discourse implies it is principally the doing of developed nations. playing the wittle-fiddle-of-eradicating-poverty-in-developping-nations to justify the continuing policy of resource extraction beyond sustainability is nothing more than demagoguery. what? you are now aguing that conservation will make the difference? this is what you wrote earlier: " The other morsel of irony in the Left fringe's critique of the Right Fringe's ecological track record is that when you look at actual BTU's per household, there's not much difference. You have electric lights, modern appliances, an automobile - etc - just like they do. Hardly enough of a difference to warrant the self righteous grandstanding and condemnation issuing forth from the Left fringe" so which is it going to be: is conservation key or not? you can't have it both ways. your interpretation of "human nature", the supposed desire of some to change it and the means available to address the problems belong to the realm of cartoons. and the demonization goes on ... weak. let's face it, under the pretense of an educated argument you debate like a rightwing thug.
  3. classical fallacy: "the dirt-poor-rabbit-breeding-like-3rd world is the cause of resource and ecosystems depletion. we just need to lift them out of poverty to solve the problem" breaking newws: the first world with its low birth rate is the main cause of unsustainable development such as fossil fuel depletion, global warming, overfishing and raping of the ocean bottoms, illegal logging of exotic woods to be exported, destruction of mangroves for shrimp aquaculture to feed us and tourism for our jet-setting, etc ... the population explosion has already occurred and these folks want what we have and do what we do. considering the state of resources, it's simply mathematically impossible no matter how much gdp spewing you do.
  4. there is another form of extremism that is hardly ever recognized: it's called "economism". it calls for a nearly blind faith in "The Market" to solve problems that have little to do with commerce (except perhaps being victim to it), whereupon you can always spend or sell your way out of trouble. you'll also note that the folks in the thrall of "economism", including its high priests, are never held accountable for their pronouncements on how "The Economy" will take care of it. lest we forget reality: http://www.maweb.org/en/Article.aspx?id=58 Experts Warn Ecosystem Changes Will Continue to Worsen, Putting Global Development Goals At Risk Wednesday, March 30, 2005 | London, UK A landmark study released today reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation, and the regulation of regional climate, natural hazards and pests – are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years. [...]
  5. what they have is advisers telling them that production may have peaked and we better control what is left of it. http://www.energybulletin.net/4428.html
  6. over half of our footprint results from transport of goods and people. Il one eats mostly locally produced unprocessed food with moderate amounts of protein, and drive a car with twice the mileage of a guzzler, it clearly makes a huge difference (and we won't compare the lighting and heating of a moderate home versus that of a suburban fake castle) did you read the page? one ton would decrease the GHG production of the average canadian by 20% that is a good question which pokes holes in the logic of claiming that people concerned by overpopulation and resource allocation in the 70's where just a bunch of criminal alarmists.
  7. just enough ego to care being mindlessly branded according to JayB's agenda. thank you for your understanding.
  8. such a gift for nuance ... "you are either with us, or against us", right? i have no frickin idea. why do we spend more than 500 billions on "defense" per year? btw, your numbers are grossly inflated. considering that: colombia has 4times the firepower of venez. (thank you taxpayers), "border incidents" are 'per chance' more and more common, there is an ever larger number of "military advisers" and "private contractors" in Colombia, we hear a crescendo of anti-chavez rhetoric in the US media such as continual allegations without an iota of evidence of venez. involvement in colombian politics, etc ... nothing that we haven't seen and heard over and over before. i look forward to your mentioning venez. WMDs to justify your warmongering. give it a rest, will ya? fine, i don't make a habit of confusing the employment of death squads with central/latin american foreign policy.
  9. what a bunch of doo doo. there is a huge difference in ecological footprint between lifestyles.
  10. do you really have to do JayB's dirty demonization for him?
  11. what, no small talk about exporting democracy today? god forbid if the venezuelans had elected, multiple times, a president that decided what to do with "your oil" ... how do you sleep at night?
  12. here you go, from a conservative who doesn't drink the coolaid: ME policy and this piece from a writer on the ME: Who killed ...
  13. a) i see little whining b) were you out of your diapers during reagan and bush1? c) before you can move forward, you have to understand what happened.
  14. j_b

    this thing isn't over

    just keep in mind that the ability to audit the vote will be critical for future elections as well. i don't think anyone interested in the future of democracy would want any legitimate questions to remain unanswered (even if it means being demonized by the usual suspects).
  15. a versatile AT setup offers the best combination of compromise on the flats and slopes, range of footgear (tec. climbing to skiing), and "upswing potential" for fun. snowboards, split or not, kinda suck on the flats. tele does not offer the range of footwear, and AT is at least equal to all other modes in terms of enjoying travel time. the learning curve is greater for skiing but most people don't regret it.
  16. j_b

    this thing isn't over

    "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play." http://www.thehill.com/morris/110404.aspx granted, the writer believes the exit polls were cooked. but it is solely in light of the reported vote. in other words, exit polls have never been so "wrong" until this election. kerry margin in polls vs votes - paper ballot states kerry margin in polls vs votes in non-paper ballot states good, i hope it's the same here. http://ustogether.org/election04/florida_vote_patt.htm check out the 3rd figure which makes it abundantly clear that voting method is the only variable that accounts for the difference between county samples. let's hope so. may be not?
  17. Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked
  18. j_b

    Finally...

    if your intent is to remind people that independent observers and public opinion were the only reason thousands more innocents didn't die last go around, you certainly have succeeded. interestingly your own link mentions the lastest death among independent reporters being shot in the head by a sniper. otherwise, since day 1 you have had the opportunity to walk the warmonger talk, and enlist, yet you are still here justifying the logic to send others, less fotunate, to do your dirty deeds ... way to go, troll.
  19. good post david. those who think that a republican-lite pro-war candidate could have won this election or the next one are seriously delusional. there would be huge defection to 3rd party candidates and it would guaranty another republican for president anyway. i just shudder at what this all means for iraqis.
  20. j_b

    Democrats Suck

    the slanderer fails to substantiate his slurs and he thinks he is being funny.
  21. j_b

    Democrats Suck

    both, hypocrite windbag! after supporting bush in almost every instance for the past 3years, you suddenly would have the moral integrity to tell progressives how to elect a progressive candidate. risible.
  22. j_b

    Democrats Suck

    indeed, i am sensitive to my being compared to a fascist nutcase without you providing evidence to support your assertion. i have only expressed support for 2 candidates which are: dean and kerry. how does this fit with your discourse? and what principles would these be? that attacking other nations without provocation is wrong? that the motive behind the iraq war is controlling the flow of oil? that promoting conservation is necessary? that bush's economic policy amounts to bankrupting this nation and its social programs? i think it'll be very difficult for you to show that these feelings aren't shared by many if not most americans. of course you can't address these issues so you find it convenient to attack the messenger thus being consistent with the display of hate and mud-slinging we have witnessed in the recent past. pathetic discourse which isn't 20years old but at least 50. everyone will instantly recognize the debt you owe to joe mccarthy. in this you join the plethora of rightwing windbags that you guys find so pleasurable listening to on the airwaves.
  23. j_b

    Democrats Suck

    i certainly do not go out my way to discredit jay_b by underhanded tactics, but if he is going to resort to throwing epithets around because he cannot argue his point cogently, he'll definitely find his match.
  24. j_b

    Democrats Suck

    Well - seeing as how anything that you view as reasonable will be rejected by 95% of the electorate for all of eternity, one would think that you'd try to find a guy that embraces at least a part of your agenda and pitches it to voters in a manner that doesn't consign the ideas to a Larouchesque slagheap of political non-starters. Do keep it up though comrade. considering that i'd have been mostly happy with kerry just shows that your attempts at marginalizing anybody who doesn't give into your "dems have to go conservative to be elected" for what it truly is: hogwash! i note that you are the second one of our very conservative posters who attempts to pin the larouche tag on me. are you people concerting with one another to label vocal opponents or do you share the same trait commonly known as stupidity? for you ought to be able to assess readily from my discourse that i consider larouche a fascist nutcase. as far as you are concerned however, i can tell you are a manipulative scumbag. have a good day asshole.
  25. j_b

    Democrats Suck

    who cares if such a franken-candidate could have won if for all intent and purpose it is to apply conservative policy. the goal is not to create unanimity but reasonable policy. it'd certainly would have been good for 3rd party alternatives. so minx, assume for a moment that both candidates fit your morals equally but otherwise are similar to bush and kerry as far as policy is concerned. who would you have picked? chuck: for once we disagree on everything you just said.
×
×
  • Create New...