Joined: Mar 11, 2009
Comments: 1903
Connecticut
ISP:
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
Really wrote: <quoted text>
Aww another welfare percipient spread the we lath douche bag.
The top 10% pay just over 90% of taxes genius.
There were 2 congressmen who pushed a flat rate tax... 10%... no deductions and EVERYONE paid.... unfortunately you dums voted that down.
Simply stated, you think only white folks should have to pay taxes.... idiot. oh and the top 10% controll over 94% of the fianaical wealth. So shouldn't they be paing 90% of the tax? Not to mention when you factor in the payroll taxes the share the wealth pays drops well under 90%. So again if you tax everyone at the SAME tax rate - those, who own 90% of the wealth wold naturally pay 90% of the total taxes collected. The statistics shound bad until you look at who owns the wealth.
|
|
Really
Hollywood, FL
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
You can't afford to have that tax paid, you'd be out all your money. Last time i checked CO2 isn't unproven, unverifiable, or imaginary. You know co2 exists right.
See a Cap and trade would tax Carbon - it wouldn't be a tax on an imaginary thing - just explaining so you can avoid that tax if they ever pass it. Are you truly that stupid? C02 obviously does exist... has anyone proven that it is a direct cause of global warming? NO. Is global warming man made? Hell NO. Tell me oh unwise one... how is it that mars (you know, 4th planet from our sun) is experiencing the same rate of global warming as we are... tell us oh unwise parrot...... did man cause that on mars too?
|
|
Really
Hollywood, FL
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
oh and the top 10% controll over 94% of the fianaical wealth. So shouldn't they be paing 90% of the tax?
Not to mention when you factor in the payroll taxes the share the wealth pays drops well under 90%.
So again if you tax everyone at the SAME tax rate - those, who own 90% of the wealth wold naturally pay 90% of the total taxes collected.
The statistics shound bad until you look at who owns the wealth. Ahh another spread the wealth idiot speaks. If you have money, why should you be taxed differently than those who don't? You should be taxed on money earned not money saved genius. Granted you probably don't have much if any saved... so that would not affect you... FL has what is known as a liquid assets tax....$40K or more in a bank (savings acct) gets taxed at 1%.... this is another tax after already paying income tax. Although I can't imagine anyone smart enough to earn enough to save and not being smart enough to invest. Yet, You lame ass libs want to tax success and reward failing... typical. Flat rate tax is fair... but you lib losers refuse to pay your fair share... you think that rich folks owe you something. Get a job and earn your own money you sponge.
|
|
Really
Hollywood, FL
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
Are you a moron? You must be. I never said how much they paid MORON. that was the other guy. I took his stat. He was upset that the wealthy paid 83.6. My point was that he shouldn't be if they controlled more than that percentage of wealth.
It's a pretty simple concept but you would have to read and comprehend first, instead of name calling and apparently entering into the middle of a conversation without stopping to understand what is being said. Another thimble nut spread the wealth lib spouting your spread the wealth tripe. It is not my fault that you do not earn enough to support yourself. Nor is it the fault of others who make a descent living. It is also not our responsibility to support you.
|
|
“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”
Joined: Oct 6, 2009
Comments: 975
Show Low, AZ
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
You can't afford to have that tax paid, you'd be out all your money. Last time i checked CO2 isn't unproven, unverifiable, or imaginary. You know co2 exists right.
See a Cap and trade would tax Carbon - it wouldn't be a tax on an imaginary thing - just explaining so you can avoid that tax if they ever pass it. Your global warming scare's been proven to not exist; because if your church actually HAD a magic lens: We'd find it. As far as your political rant, if an organization is one of a military nature it's agents of any kind identifiable become subject to Martial Law of war in fact: since there are no other legal means to handle them. You're obviously another dried-paint-around-the mouth & nose moonbat zombie who's never opened a legal encyclopedia but there are more urgent circumstances than your ipod getting wet. When you can even INDICATE we don't have the technology to detect that lens ten times over you'll have.. and INDICATION you MIGHT not be wrong. Which you DEMONSTRABLY are by the fact the lens is unfound. After thirty years. Application for stupidity and barking to be confused with being sure: D.e.n.i.e.d. Magic Lens: D.e.n.i.e.d. Lack of knowledge of history in dealing with armed insurrection: D.e.n.i.e.d. You're one of those moonbats from whose mouth issues the idiocy of uneducated ideologue.
|
|
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Comments: 3737
Everett, WA
|
Brian_G wrote: I'm going out of my way to be fair. You have no fairness in your high school educated & 5th grade comprehended soul. You are a 4-time alleged threatener, alleged stalker, intimidator, & gatherer of like-minded people into the denier brian_g 'ganghood', including the pukey proud racist pig denier dirtling, earthling has no brain, eart hling (an alien has no affinity to Earth),'injun killer'(has no love for humans), the racist Raptor in Michigan, & your beloved, bob burns....yes, your beloved bob burns, who did you even you would NOT do. Yes, you denied what he did (because your Stephan King 'IT' clown mask is good at denial), but you did love what he did.
|
|
“Climate Realist”
Joined: Dec 20, 2008
Comments: 12237
Dallas, TX
|
CTEd wrote: COmbanats? So you think going into to someone's house and taking them out of their house during dinner and imprisoning them is Aermican? Really? No gun in their hand no nothing. Don't we have to prove they ever were combatants?
Clearly you don't believe in American ideals... Isn't that how they caught KSM? Every day he breathes shows President Obama isn't really committed to reducing carbon emissions and justice.
|
|
“You are not your bank account.”
Joined: Feb 6, 2008
Comments: 1256
Norman, Oklahoma
ISP:
Norman, OK
|
Brian_G wrote: <quoted text>
Isn't that how they caught KSM? Every day he breathes shows President Obama isn't really committed to reducing carbon emissions and justice. Pithy. It proves you have the intellect of a watercress sandwich, but it is pithy.
|
|
|
|
“Climate Realist”
Joined: Dec 20, 2008
Comments: 12237
Bamberg, Germany
|
Michael Allred wrote: Pithy. It proves you have the intellect of a watercress sandwich, but it is pithy. I'm anti-intellectual, I believe in common sense. Thanks for your recognition.
|
|
“Climate Realist”
Joined: Dec 20, 2008
Comments: 12237
Bamberg, Germany
|
litesong wrote: You have no fairness in your high school educated & 5th grade comprehended soul. You are a 4-time alleged threatener, alleged stalker, intimidator, I include your lies and slander in my posts, I don't distort your distorted view of reality, how is that unfair? & gatherer of like-minded people into the denier brian_g 'ganghood', including the pukey proud racist pig denier dirtling, earthling has no brain, eart hling (an alien has no affinity to Earth),'injun killer'(has no love for humans), the racist Raptor in Michigan, & your beloved, bob burns....yes, your beloved bob burns, who did you even you would NOT do. See what I mean? You've admitted you are the membership committee foreman, even though I've banned you from our meetings... Yes, you denied what he did (because your Stephan King 'IT' clown mask is good at denial), but you did love what he did. I love it, I love it and I have to admit I do love it.
|
|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
LessHypeMoreFact wrote: <quoted text>
NOTHING is by definition a 'pollutant'. A pollutant is anything that is in the wrong place or the wrong concentration for some reason. For example, we need selenium in our diet for good health. Yet too much selenium in the water is a POLLUTANT, because of concentration. And ANY amount of arsenic is a pollutant because we have no need of arsenic in our biology.
Since too much CO2 causes problems, it is by the definition of pollution, a pollutant IN THAT CONTEXT.
Your reliance on demagoguery and spin is a clear sign that you have nothing to add to the discussion. Demagoguery and spin? Is that what the far-left now calls simple questions? I guess so... Isn't spin saying that "too much CO2 causes problems..." and then by extrapolation saying that there is too much CO2 in our atmosphere because you believe it to be the mechanism for global warming, and you then believe global warming is caused by man as opposed to a natural phenomenon? Aren't you making quite the leap? By the way, thanks for disregarding each and every question. It's nice of you to add so f'ing much to the conversation. P.S.– You say, "And ANY amount of arsenic is a pollutant because we have no need of arsenic in our biology." Apparently you have nothing CORRECT to add to the conversation. Nicely done, jackass. "Despite arsenic's reputation as a poison, it actually has fairly low toxicity in comparison with some other metals, although with chronic exposure there is some concern about arsenic's effect on chromosomes and its carcinogenicity. In fact, arsenic may even be essential and functional in humans in very small amounts. It has been shown to be essential in rats and other animals, though it is found in higher concentrations in them than in humans. Organic arsenic as arsenates (+5 form of arsenic) and elemental arsenic both found naturally in the earth and in foods do not readily produce toxicity. In fact, they are handled fairly easily by the body and eliminated by the kidneys. The inorganic arsenites or trivalent forms of arsenic, such as arsenic trioxide used industrially and found as a food contaminate, seem to create the problems. They accumulate in the body, particularly in the skin, hair, and nails, but also in internal organs. On the average, there is about 10-20 mg. of arsenic in the human body; higher levels may lead to problems. Arsenic can accumulate when kidney function is decreased. Luckily, absorption of arsenic is fairly low, usually less than 5 percent, so most is eliminated in the feces and some in the urine." http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp...
|
|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
The earth survived nicely for billions of years with no burning of fossile fuel and no clearcutting of trees. Now we do both, skewing the maount of CO2 in the amptmosphere by incredible amounts (billions or trillions of tons).
That's fact. How can that ever be good. The term everything in moderation has held up pretty well. So I refuse to simply assume that spewing all this CO2 wont change anything at all.
Now, how much do have to reduce it? Ideally all the way. If Humans produce NO CO2 for energy generation then we are back to where the earth used to be for billions of years Volcanoes and forest fires and breathing of animals and scrubbed out by the trees and algae (although we are still cutting down the natural CO2 scrubbers).
AS for if we find out that a few degrees warmer is better? No thanks. I don't think we can EVER know the long term impacts of meddling with the temperature - so abating the CO2 We are producing artificially(and only started doing so in the last few hundred years) is one thing - trying to target certain temps or climates is a whole other ball game.
I ascribe to carry in carry out - you make the trash you have to clean it up. Buring fuel produces vast amounts of CO2 - we should clean it up and be CO2 neutral. Won't happen for a while, but it's a noble goal. "AS for if we find out that a few degrees warmer is better? No thanks. I don't think we can EVER know the long term impacts of meddling with the temperature - so abating the CO2 We are producing artificially(and only started doing so in the last few hundred years) is one thing - trying to target certain temps or climates is a whole other ball game." So is it or is it not correct that CO2 has greatly fluctuated over the life of the planet, most often without the benefit of man? Are you positive that CO2 is now driving AGW? Are you not advocating "meddling with the temperature"? Since CO2 is just a trace gas, 95% of which is generated by natural factors, can you guarantee there is any benefit from CO2 sequestration? Can you guarantee that this "cure" won't be worse than your touted AGW "disease"? Why should the rest of us believe the AGW hysterics when you have been wrong so many times in the last century in regard to ice ages and global warming?
|
|
NobodyYouKnow
Toronto, Canada
|
Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
Demagoguery and spin? Is that what the far-left now calls simple questions? I guess so... Switching the issue from AGW from GHGs to whether to 'call' CO2 a 'Pollutant' is demagoguery, NOT debate. Trolls ( and you are one) are quite aware of this spin. Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
Isn't spin saying that "too much CO2 causes problems..." No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'. Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
and then by extrapolation saying that there is too much CO2 in our atmosphere because you believe it to be the mechanism for global warming, No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'. Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
and you then believe global warming is caused by man as opposed to a natural phenomenon? Aren't you making quite the leap? The majority of AGW is known to be from GHG accumulations and most of that forcing is from CO2 increase. This is not debated as it is established fact in the climatology sciences ( hence a theory ) taught as fact in schools. And NONE of these facts are of my 'invention' or 'origination'. I merely understand them well enough to debate them, if I can find anyone interested in the science and not their own spin and biases. Saul Alinsky wrote: <quoted text>
In fact, arsenic may even be essential and functional in humans in very small amounts. It has been shown to be essential in rats and other animals I am hardly wrong for stating that it is a pollutant in any amount as it has no known use in the body when all you have to call me incorrect is a 'speculation', not a fact.
|
|
Saul Alinsky
Pittsburgh, PA
|
NobodyYouKnow wrote: <quoted text>
Switching the issue from AGW from GHGs to whether to 'call' CO2 a 'Pollutant' is demagoguery, NOT debate. Trolls ( and you are one) are quite aware of this spin.
I'm sorry you don't want to talk about it. Though not surprised as it doesn't quite fit with your AGW hoax.
<quoted text>
No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'.
Yep, just as the known facts had the earth at the center of the universe. Fortunately for us, the far-left wasn't in charge at that time to tax the hell out of us because of it.
<quoted text>
No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'.
Yes, it is a theory. Great. Let me know when you can actually come up with any type of evidence that your fixes will do anything to improve the situation. Oh and, by the way, how will taxes improve the situation again?
<quoted text>
The majority of AGW is known to be from GHG accumulations and most of that forcing is from CO2 increase. This is not debated as it is established fact in the climatology sciences ( hence a theory ) taught as fact in schools.
Yep, it is a theory. Let me know when the theory has more evidence to back it up.
And NONE of these facts are of my 'invention' or 'origination'. I merely understand them well enough to debate them, if I can find anyone interested in the science and not their own spin and biases.
I see... anyone who doesn't agree is simply biased and "spinning". My, how generous of you.
<quoted text>
I am hardly wrong for stating that it is a pollutant in any amount as it has no known use in the body when all you have to call me incorrect is a 'speculation', not a fact.
It's a theory with probably more evidence to back it up than AGW. But it isn't your preferred theory, so you don't like it. Well, that sure clears everything up. Er... not really.
|
|
“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”
Joined: Oct 6, 2009
Comments: 975
Show Low, AZ
|
NobodyYouKnow wrote: <quoted text>
Switching the issue from AGW from GHGs to whether to 'call' CO2 a 'Pollutant' is demagoguery, NOT debate. Trolls ( and you are one) are quite aware of this spin.
<quoted text>
No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'.
<quoted text>
No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'.
<quoted text>
The majority of AGW is known to be from GHG accumulations and most of that forcing is from CO2 increase. This is not debated as it is established fact in the climatology sciences ( hence a theory ) taught as fact in schools.
And NONE of these facts are of my 'invention' or 'origination'. I merely understand them well enough to debate them, if I can find anyone interested in the science and not their own spin and biases.
<quoted text>
I am hardly wrong for stating that it is a pollutant in any amount as it has no known use in the body when all you have to call me incorrect is a 'speculation', not a fact. It FEEDS the PLANTS, that GIVE YOU OXYGEN you insipid twit. Greenhouse gas has not EVER been proven to be responsible for warming of the atmosphere and it can be easily shown it is NOT heating the atmosphere at large. It MUST be trapping at 50,000 feet. If it were trapping it we would have FOUND it in 30 years. And lest you claim MORE MAGICAL FORCES made the CO2 magically DROP and start MIXING so well we can't even photograph it, there's no reported rise in atmospheric light distortion due to the incredible heat necessary to MELT TWO ICE CAPS and disrupt three continents. Actually the leveraging of CO2 making dramatically increased humidity: MANDATORY has been repeatedly shown NOT to be happening. So it's all lies as soon as you hit 'reply' like it always is.
|
|
“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”
Joined: Oct 6, 2009
Comments: 975
Show Low, AZ
|
Greenhouse gas has not should be
CO2 has not
|
|
“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”
Joined: Oct 6, 2009
Comments: 975
Show Low, AZ
|
NobodyYouKnow wrote: <quoted text>
No. That has been defined by the established science. See the AGW theory. Stating FACTS is not spin or demagoguery. It may someday be repealed as theory but until that day, it is still the 'known facts'.
<quoted text>
The majority of AGW is known to be from GHG accumulations and most of that forcing is from CO2 increase. This is not debated as it is established fact in the climatology sciences ( hence a theory ) taught as fact in schools.
And NONE of these facts are of my 'invention' or 'origination'. I merely understand them well enough to debate them, if I can find anyone interested in the science and not their own spin and biases. Enough said: http://tinyurl.com/yexj5fu
|
|
“dening those who deny nature. ”
Joined: Jun 21, 2007
Comments: 7163
Norfolk va
ISP:
Fort Walton Beach, FL
|
Judged:
1
1
CTEd wrote: <quoted text>
oh and the top 10% controll over 94% of the fianaical wealth. So shouldn't they be paing 90% of the tax?
Not to mention when you factor in the payroll taxes the share the wealth pays drops well under 90%.
So again if you tax everyone at the SAME tax rate - those, who own 90% of the wealth wold naturally pay 90% of the total taxes collected.
The statistics shound bad until you look at who owns the wealth. The problem is that those who own 90% of the wealth would have no reason to keep that wealth here and move it where it would be safe and out of reach of Obama's goverment. Obama has already made efforts to track it down but now it is being moved in ways to keep the US goverment from tracking it. The sooner the goverment realizes it has to encourage it to come home to be invested instead of trying to confiscate it the sooner it will. Otherwise all we are going to see is wealthty taking that money where they can put it to work for them.
|
|
Northie
Spokane, WA
|
Judged:
1
1
Mac-7 wrote: <quoted text>
"We will run into the desertification and loss of human population MUCH sooner, probably in 50 years."
If so then the only hope for survival is nuclear energy.
But the same libs who are freaked out by global warming from CO2 turn their noses up at the solution to that problem.
I think they know that the earth isn't coming to an end and are just using the hysteria to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Nuclear energy? Let's get moving and build a decent waste repository, let's be prepared to pay developing countries for NOT building bombs, and let's come to terms with the actual, unsubsidized cost of nuclear power. Then let's realize that nukes take a VERY long time to build, so there is no freakin' way they can meet our urgent need to cut emissions dramatically within 15 years. High costs and long waits; that's nuclear power. Gas and wind will get us further, faster. Nuclear and solar will take it from there.
|
|
“You are not your bank account.”
Joined: Feb 6, 2008
Comments: 1256
Norman, Oklahoma
ISP:
Norman, OK
|
Judged:
1
1
Brian_G wrote: <quoted text>
I'm anti-intellectual, I believe in common sense. Thanks for your recognition. Ah, so you believe in whatever you're told is true from minute to minute. Right. Gotcha... So, since you've now admitted that you form no actual opinions of your own, and in fact don't even think about THOSE, we're to take you seriously why?
|
|
|
Judge it!
Search the Weather Forum:
Virgo
