The Copenhagen meeting
 

So, am I understanding it correct that many of the "climate change elite" that advertise reducing carbon emissions the most (at least in theory) flew their private planes into Denmark and had limo's and towncars to transport them around Copenhagen? Even if every person there took public air to get there, think of the thousands and thousands of gallons of airplane fuel used :eek:

If the leaders of the conference REALLY wanted to show how freaking green they were, there are tools such as Go-To-Meeting that are used in the corporate world that work just fine. The enviro-elite seem to be the example of "do as I say, not as I do".

Gimme a freakin' break.

John

I wish I had been there.
I hear Danish chicks are hot.
Oh, and yeah, I might have shown up for one of those conference
things too.

Dave

I understand approx. 140 aircraft and about 1000 limos. :p

Just another war on an imaginary enemy. War on terror, war on global
warming. Not much difference as both are bleeding the taxpayer and playing
on our fears to justify. Lots of money and power at stake here.

Create a "crisis" and then get money to "solve" it.

So, you're suggesting that the "War on Terror" is a gov't contrived farce, and that the Republicans a capable of creating such things as well? Although, I would see the "Global Warming" issue as a far lesser evil, as no one is being killed in the process.


Dave

Surprised Prince Albert wasn't there hawking "Green Credits"...

Global warming my ass.

We're all safe now as David Letterman said they are going to put a cap on the number of hot women Tiger Woods is allowed to have :D

Now with the EPA deciding they have power over even more of the economy (EVERYTHING generates CO2) Copenhagen is basically a sidenote.

Doesn't ANYONE have a problem with this power grab?

Pete

It's all part of the EPA's regulatory mandate. Blame Nixon! :D

John

I have a huge problem with it.

RC

As I said, it's well within the mandate of the EPA. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that they had to regulate CO2 - in 2007 - during the Bush Administration - after they stacked the court with Roberts & Alito.

So, if you don't want to blame Nixon for establishing the EPA, blame Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 for appointing all those activist judges.

John

As long as they don't put a tax on the natural gas I generate I really don't care. :D

Hehehehehe...One of the by-products of this Gastric Bypass surgery I had is that now, I put out a LOT of, erm, "Gas"...I spose the EPA would like to stick a Catalytic Perverter up my keester...Go ahead, boys, let's see ya try !

You put a lot of stock in painting things Red and Blue don't you. A lot of bad stuff has come from seemingly innocuous moves by all concerned. I guess for me, this just again illustrates the cancer that is government, and the fact that we are always better off having less of it.

RC

An unavoidable consequence of having eyes to see what has happened since Reagan and the years to have once experienced what he destroyed. But, actually, what I'm saying is that even Republican presidents and their conservative judicial appointees have seen the wisdom and the necessity of strong environmental protections.

So, you wouldn't want the EPA to regulate CO2. How about other types of emissions? Do you want the EPA to do anything to improve the quality of our air and water? Do you even want the EPA to exist? If you do, what would you have them do?

John

So if it were up to you we would not have OSHA, Child Labor Laws, the FDA.......
wE WOULD BE IN A world of hurt my friend if we had a capitalistic system and a government that did not stand up to it. As it is now we can't even get a universal health care bill passed and you want less government?:confused:

Who are you kidding, capitalism has provided for your lifestyle and the most prosperous, robust economy in the world. Even our "poor" and down on their luck have it much better here than anywhere else.

I would even argue that child labor laws came about in part from the capitalism that you despise. Without the prosperity created by it, the need for child labor to put food on the table would have continued with or without laws governing child labor. It would have been a matter necessity. It doesn't compare to the past, but children still work farms all over the country. I know I did. That concept might be a little foreign to you because of location.

You can certainly have OSHA, FDA and other regulatory boards without the expanse of government we see today. Have you looked at how state and federal government has grown even in the last 10 years??. It grows because thats the nature of the beast. It's very self serving for the "industry" and careerist's it creates.

Yes, I want less government.

RC

With respect to our economy, you're probable right for the time being but we're in decline, largely as a result of offshoring virtually all of our manufacturing and even a significant portion of our food production. Meanwhile other economies like China, India and Brazil are gaining on us. Taken together, the EU countries may already be on a par with us.

As for our poor - why the hell do you use quotes? - there are many countries where the social safety net does a far better job of supporting those at the bottom. The social democracies of Europe, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, do a far better job than we do.

Okay, argue it. Where are your facts and supporting data? As it happens, you'll be wrong but I'll wait to see what you come up with before I weigh in further.

Child labor laws have always made provision for farm labor but not, interestingly for, say, a family-run machine shop. Of course, family farms are becoming pretty much a thing of the past. Living in Minnesota puts you in a position to know that.

In recent years state and local governments have if anything gotten smaller because it's starved for resources. Here in California we're even to the point of shutting down police departments in smaller cities and turning the police responsibility over to county sheriff's departments. Schools are closing, waste disposal operations are being privatized, public transportation is being cut back, etc.

Under Bush federal government did grow while at the same time shedding itself as much as possible of the responsibility to govern or regulate. It instead became a haven for political cronies and utter hacks whose purpose was to cater to the wishes of the industries they were charged with regulating. Agency heads were drawn from the industries they were charged with regulating. Critical positions were awarded to people on the basis of their political connections or political ideology without the least regard for competence.

John

With respect to our economy, you're probable right for the time being but we're in decline, largely as a result of offshoring virtually all of our manufacturing and even a significant portion of our food production. Meanwhile other economies like China, India and Brazil are gaining on us. Taken together, the EU countries may already be on a par with us.



As for our poor - why the hell do you use quotes? - there are many countries where the social safety net does a far better job of supporting those at the bottom. The social democracies of Europe, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, do a far better job than we do.

Bullshit. One thing these countries have done, is not produce and provide entitlement lifestyles to anywhere near the extent we have. Liberalism has done more to destroy generations of peoples in this country than capitalism by a long shot. We are so distant from Denmark, Sweden and Norway in this regard that reasonable comparisons cannot be made IMO.



Okay, argue it. Where are your facts and supporting data? As it happens, you'll be wrong but I'll wait to see what you come up with before I weigh in further.


I apply logic and reason. You go ahead and provide whatever you wish.



Child labor laws have always made provision for farm labor but not, interestingly for, say, a family-run machine shop. Of course, family farms are becoming pretty much a thing of the past. Living in Minnesota puts you in a position to know that.


Yes, you are correct. Not sure what your point is but you are correct.


In recent years state and local governments have if anything gotten smaller because it's starved for resources. Here in California we're even to the point of shutting down police departments in smaller cities and turning the police responsibility over to county sheriff's departments. Schools are closing, waste disposal operations are being privatized, public transportation is being cut back, etc.

I'm glad you brought that up. California is a wonderful example of what I am talking about

Under Bush federal government did grow while at the same time shedding itself as much as possible of the responsibility to govern or regulate. It instead became a haven for political cronies and utter hacks whose purpose was to cater to the wishes of the industries they were charged with regulating. Agency heads were drawn from the industries they were charged with regulating. Critical positions were awarded to people on the basis of their political connections or political ideology without the least regard for
competence.


And this is changing how?, Don't get me started.

RC

Their arguments are thin Doucanoe. And the they have no real answers other
than rock throwing. There is no other way. We are a capitalist country and
always will be. Either they get on the train and find a seat or become hobos.

As for our poor - why the hell do you use quotes? - there are many countries where the social safety net does a far better job of supporting those at the bottom. The social democracies of Europe, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, do a far better job than we do.

Bullshit. One thing these countries have done, is not produce and provide entitlement lifestyles to anywhere near the extent we have. Liberalism has done more to destroy generations of peoples in this country than capitalism by a long shot. We are so distant from Denmark, Sweden and Norway in this regard that reasonable comparisons cannot be made IMO.

Yes, we are far distant from these countries but not in the way you suggest. They have things like free health care, free higher education, including a living allowance while attending, a minimum wage that shows ours for the joke it is, paid maternity and paternity leave, free day care.... You get the picture.

Frankly, in this regard, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Okay, argue it. Where are your facts and supporting data? As it happens, you'll be wrong but I'll wait to see what you come up with before I weigh in further.

I apply logic and reason. You go ahead and provide whatever you wish.

What you do is make unsupported claims and assertions. It may seem logical in the sense that it could have happened that way but if you had knowledge instead of just "logic" on your side you'd know that what you said isn't true.

As for child labor laws, they weren't introduced because prosperity made them feasible. They were introduced in the Great Depression so that children would stop taking jobs away from the millions of unemployed adults. The legislation that accomplished this was The Fair Labor Standards Act, passed by a Democratic Congress during the Roosevelt Administration. That's logical too and it has the added virtue of being true.

Child labor laws have always made provision for farm labor but not, interestingly for, say, a family-run machine shop. Of course, family farms are becoming pretty much a thing of the past. Living in Minnesota puts you in a position to know that.

Yes, you are correct. Not sure what your point is but you are correct.

You brought up the agricultural exceptions to child labor laws. I was merely pointing out that they were a) a notable exception to child labor laws in general and b) becoming increasingly irrelevant.

In recent years state and local governments have if anything gotten smaller because it's starved for resources. Here in California we're even to the point of shutting down police departments in smaller cities and turning the police responsibility over to county sheriff's departments. Schools are closing, waste disposal operations are being privatized, public transportation is being cut back, etc.

I'm glad you brought that up. California is a wonderful example of what I am talking about

Care to explain? Our problems aren't part of the Great Liberal Conspiracy To Destroy America. They stem from our inability to raise needed revenues because of the legacy left us by past Republican Governors but mostly because it takes a 2/3 majority to pass any revenue producing legislation. Many of the Republicans in the legislature have taken an oath to block any legislative attempts to raise taxes. Even those who haven't taken the oath vote "no" in a bloc. The result is nothing passes and the state is broke.

Under Bush federal government did grow while at the same time shedding itself as much as possible of the responsibility to govern or regulate. It instead became a haven for political cronies and utter hacks whose purpose was to cater to the wishes of the industries they were charged with regulating. Agency heads were drawn from the industries they were charged with regulating. Critical positions were awarded to people on the basis of their political connections or political ideology without the least regard for competence.

And this is changing how?, Don't get me started.

Seems you're already started...... But anyway, this is changing because under Obama the serious qualified people are back in charge. For instance, the Secretary of Education is an educator, the Secretary of Energy is a physicist and a Nobel laureate, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs is a retired general, the EPA Administrator is a chemical engineer and career agency employee for over 20 years, the HUD Secretary had the same job in NYC, the Ag. Secretary was a longtime governor of a farm state (Iowa).

Want me to go on?

John

Yeah, well see, Jack, we only have rocks 'cuz we've already voluntarily surrendered our guns to Obama. You're next!

Seriously, though, the problem isn't capitalism. Capitalism's fine. It's unregulated capitalism that causes problems.

John

Unregulated imports are the bigger problem. We have to somehow even the
playing field. And I dont mean we should live in huts and eat rice. We should
restrict the amount of that cheap ass crap coming into the country. No
reason we cant make our own goods. More jobs would make the American
worker more valuable and better paid. As it stands now, employers are
overwhelmed with job applications and government mandates with low
demand for goods or services. I just can not see how more regulations and
taxes on businesses is going to solve anything. Put America back to work
first, then we can discuss the other.

Unregulated imports are an aspect of unregulated capitalism and one of the worst. What we need to correct the problem is protective tariffs, just like all those countries have who keep dumping their cheap stuff on us.

John

I wonder just how many of the posters here have actually been in any European countries for extended periods? I suspect the disparagement of their lifestyles and economies comes from the same sources as all of the so called failings of Canada's single Payer plan.

Having lived in Canada for 53 years and having travelled extensively in Europe I think I am in a good position to judge the quality of life in many of those countries, and frankly the jingoism of "only in America" is getting rather old. I did not see any poor people in The Netherlands, or Denmark, or Germany, even France and Britain seemed to have people who, while less well off, were adequately fed and housed.

Of course we could apply that phrase to the unfettered capitalism that nearly brought down the whole world economy. Odd though how Canada's banks did not need propping up, could it be that their mortgage system actually works? You do know who the TD in TDAmeritrade really is don't you?

When laws are truly designed to provide fair and equal treatment it is a win-win situation. When they are designed to enrich one group at the expense of all the others collapse is inevitable.

Nothing wrong with less government as long as less government does not translate into a wider divide between rich and poor.

You know it seems to me you have adopted a belief and now twist everything to fit it. Read the replies in earnest and not in indignation. You may come away with a different impression.

Ok let me understand this.
You are concerned about manufacturing jobs yet support the party that is synonymous with big business and big business is the one that is shutting down manufacturing here in order to source overseas, right?

What's wrong with this picture?

First off, unbridled capitalism is a terrible template for the masses. This is a fact.
Second, this is my country and I will work to make it a prosperous land for the masses in spite of the immoral propaganda that has taken good hard working folks and made them into cheerleaders for the ruling class.

Why don't people understand this John?

It is very frustrating to see my fellow countrymen fail to recognize this distinction.

When? :D

So how much regulation is enough? Folks are decrying the lack of manufacturing here and at the same time arguing for higher taxes and more regulatory burden and government interference!

And it is interference, unless some bureaucrat can make business decisions better than some guy who's been in business for years.

Government takes care of itself, is greedy and powerhungry.

The CO2 is a good example. We all exhale CO2 - we are apparently toxic and need to be regulated for our own good.

Pete

What's wrong with this picture is that your point of view sent them packing
in the first place. But go ahead, bite the hand that feeds you.

I respect your opinion Merrylander but could it be that these countries you
refer to have a lot less "baggage" than ours? Lets go roundup a few million
of our no gooders and ship them up to Canada or Denmark and see how well they make out.

They (most other 1st world countries) also lean on us for national security. Since we pay for it they have more money to spend.

Pete

Ever wonder why we have no-gooders and they don't? Maybe what you call baggage they simply reclaimed.

Seems to me the Japanese want our air base gone, maybe others feel the same way. Canada had a whole ground support squdron or two in Germany. Unfortunately they were flying F-104 widowmakers since Diefenbaker decided Canada would not be a nuclear power and converted the F-104s from delivering tactical nuke to flying ground support, hence the name widowmaker.

what sent them packing was not wanting to pay you a fair wage.

Fact.

Sarah would be proud ;)

not one accurate statement