Liberals versus Deodorant

TheDanold said:
It has gone down slightly. And nobody "adds" jobs. You can only HELP create more jobs by having an environment that attracts/keeps more job creating business.
And who would do that more? The party that promises more regulation, higher minimum wage and taxes OR the party that lets things grow naturally and doesn't interfere?
Click to expand...

the narutal growth of unregulated capitalism is towards the top, taking advantage of the bottom.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Funny Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane aren't significantly high unemployment wise, cause then you might actually have a point considering that Washington State has had one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years.
Click to expand...
Ok, checked the stats, here is what I found.

Tacoma is the most stressful city in the US with high unemployment:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/01/10/life.stress.reut/index.html

Seattle looks like an exception, but as my stats show above, the majority shows a severe problem with inner city unemployment rates.

Look if I was being forced to pay say 10/hour then I may as well hire people in the burbs and countryside, why would I go to the inner cities where people are less skilled, crime is higher, overregulation, overtaxation? About the only incentive would be lower wages, take away that and I have little reason to be there.
People are more desperate there and willing to work for lower wages, so it benefits both. I know you think you are doing good by forcing a higher wage, but it does little good if they get paid ZERO because not many businesses are willing to hire people there.
 
Why does Dano keep talking like he knows anything about science?

He always makes that "the only one who could keep up with me was Agno," as though he is the board's resident expert.

The guy wouldn't know good science if it bit him in the arse. He'll piece together whatever small science he knows along w/ stuff he just makes up to try to make whatever point he's making (see: this thread).
 
uscitizen said:
yeah like we balance our ocean fish harvests and such.
Mankind will never voluntarially balance anything.
We are too greedy.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of wanderingbear.

Look you just got a big fat raise, are you "greedy"?
You want a better life, maybe you feel you can afford it. But banning things to make costs increase is only going to result in poorer people having a harder time and for what?
To prevent 2 opposing environmental impacts from largely cancelling each other out? What a terrible waste of restricting freedom and prosperity for absolutely nothing.
 
Dunceler said:
Why does Dano keep talking like he knows anything about science?

He always makes that "the only one who could keep up with me was Agno," as though he is the board's resident expert.

The guy wouldn't know good science if it bit him in the arse. He'll piece together whatever small science he knows along w/ stuff he just makes up to try to make whatever point he's making (see: this thread).
Click to expand...
Typical Lorax, haughty denunciations of my technical arguments with absolutely NO points to his own argument.

You are boring Lorax, you are about as generic a parroting lefty as you can get.
 
TheDanold said:
I'm reminded of wanderingbear.

Look you just got a big fat raise, are you "greedy"?
You want a better life, maybe you feel you can afford it. But banning things to make costs increase is only going to result in poorer people having a harder time and for what?
To prevent 2 opposing environmental impacts from largely cancelling each other out? What a terrible waste of restricting freedom and prosperity for absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Restricting whose freedoms and prosperity is my issue Dano.
corporations are not citizens, humans are.
 
uscitizen said:
Restricting whose freedoms and prosperity is my issue Dano.
corporations are not citizens, humans are.
Click to expand...
Corporations are full of individuals (like yourself) whose jobs depend on being able to sell their product. Higher prices are not going to help that are they?

And I already said individual consumers freedoms/prosperity ARE affected. If poor people face higher prices via government regulation, then they are less prosperous and have less economic freedom.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Dano, you're such a moron it's hard to fathom how you still show up here and spew this crap. At least Dixie understood he was making a fool of himself and left.

Ozone is extremely poisonous to humans. It's a major component of urban smog, and getting rid of substances that artificially produce it is a great idea. It also exists naturally in the stratosphere. Chemical compounds that artificially deplete it outside of natural processes are also bad since. They both disrupt the natural balance of ozone.

This should not be difficult for semi-intelligent people to understand and I'm a little disappointed nobody else bothered to point this out to Dano.
Click to expand...

I did. I was rather amazed at the stupidity involved in making this thread. CFC's immediately rise up to the stratosphere and destroy millions of particles of ozone per a single CFC particle, and the ozone up there protects us from the worst effects of sun damage. However, ozone can develop down in urban areas, and it's poisonous to humans. It causes tons of lung problems. And having CFC's in urban settings does little to destroy ozone smog.
 
TheDanold said:
You are all morons, do you even understand what O3 molecules are?
If I release CFCs from an aerosol can then it will not glide through the troposphere layers of human induced O3 molecules up into the stratosphere of natural occuring O3 molecules.

Yes they are at different elevations, very good little Liberals (clap,clap) but that they are still the same fucking compound.
And please if the lot of you could refrain from debating science with me, none of you could ever keep up except for Agnosticus_Caesar. Other than him the rest of you just know how to parrot each other in your circle jerk of feigned haughtiness.

So again, if we were to keep things that increase ozone legal AND allow things that destroy ozone to be legal, then they largely balance themselves out, just like banning both would balance each other out.
A lot of you idiots have created the higher levels of ozone with your campaign against CFCs, then once you ban everything to do with those, you move on to playing hero against things that produce ozone and try to ban everything there.
Click to expand...

Yes, but CFC's are lighter than air, and they rise up to the stratosphere almost immediately, while Ozone if only up there through natural phenomonea.

It's stupid to say that they would balance themselves out - one may very well destroy the other - life doesn't work that way, one negative element doesn't always balance out a positive element.
 
TheDanold said:
Typical Lorax, haughty denunciations of my technical arguments with absolutely NO points to his own argument.

You are boring Lorax, you are about as generic a parroting lefty as you can get.
Click to expand...

You fucking dishonest bastard. I posted science about it, which you IGNORED, until enough people said it, when you didn't even try to debate it - you just said everyone was "parrotting" each other.

Wonder why we were all repeating the same thing? Maybe because it's true? Maybe because it's scientific FACT?

You are the most dishonest, retarded person who posts, period. When confronted with the truth, you can't handle it, so you simply dismiss it. In atmospheric science, there is "good" ozone & "bad" ozone. Stratospheric ozone is "good," because it protects us from ultraviolet rays. Tropospheric ozone is "bad," because it is toxic and destroys living tissue.

Understand? Go ahead; ignore this, and come back next week to post again that "liberals want you to smell bad," you idiotic, dishonest fuck.
 
"So again, if we were to keep things that increase ozone legal AND allow things that destroy ozone to be legal, then they largely balance themselves out, just like banning both would balance each other out."

And Watermark is right; this is a retarded oversimplification of the science, from someone who only thinks in the most one-dimensional way imaginable.
 
Onceler said:
You fucking dishonest bastard. I posted science about it, which you IGNORED, until enough people said it, when you didn't even try to debate it - you just said everyone was "parrotting" each other.

Wonder why we were all repeating the same thing? Maybe because it's true? Maybe because it's scientific FACT?

You are the most dishonest, retarded person who posts, period. When confronted with the truth, you can't handle it, so you simply dismiss it. In atmospheric science, there is "good" ozone & "bad" ozone. Stratospheric ozone is "good," because it protects us from ultraviolet rays. Tropospheric ozone is "bad," because it is toxic and destroys living tissue.

Understand? Go ahead; ignore this, and come back next week to post again that "liberals want you to smell bad," you idiotic, dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...

Have you met Battleborn yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top