Shut up Environmentalists!

[Giancarlo]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020525_201.html

I mean my country must do this to attract more tourists to the south. It isn't like this is a flawless option but it must be done. And it has the support of the majority of the Spanish People. But as usual, there are those idiots who march out in the streets to protest the well-being of the people. Damn it, I wish Franco was still alive to get these projects done so Spain has a good future not one where the environmentalists want everybody to live in caves again. Anti-energy, anti-water, what next? Anti-intelligence for one.

(Note: Bias post)

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by Giancarlo

(Note: Bias post)
arent they all.:rolleyes:

[Giancarlo]

Don't respond with useless spam.

[Gayowulf]

Water is integral to life, and I believe that in the near future many countries including the USA will be hurting for it.

Water will be the root of many conflicts in the future.

[Giancarlo]

You ever heard of desaliniziation? That will be the solution to all water problems. Israel and some rich oil Arab states use that method particularily Saudi Arabia.

[syd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
. Damn it, I wish Franco was still alive to get these projects done so Spain has a good future not one where the environmentalists want everybody to live in caves again.
(Note: Bias post)

So do you love this Franco guy or not? Weren't you whining about how your parents or grandparents lived under the hardships of Franco, now you want him back? Yeesh.

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You ever heard of desaliniziation? That will be the solution to all water problems. Israel and some rich oil Arab states use that method particularily Saudi Arabia.

Desalinization is neither as simple or as cheap as it is in sim city 3000. Only rich, costal countries will be able to afford it. Many costal areas are already too polluted for desalinization to be feasible.

Think of the contries that have been water-starved for the last century.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by syd


So do you love this Franco guy or not? Weren't you whining about how your parents or grandparents lived under the hardships of Franco, now you want him back? Yeesh.

My family lived under hardships because of the Civil War. Franco incidentally ended that civil war. My grandfather served in that war on the nationalist side. And Franco was the only one with the intelligence to make Spain become the fastest growing economy in Europe, also drastically lowering unemployment.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Gayowulf


Desalinization is neither as simple or as cheap as it is in sim city 3000.

Do I look like a damn idiot?



Only rich, costal countries will be able to afford it.

And that is the truth of the matter. Maybe if more technology is made then the price will go down but some people don't want that to happen because they are just insane.



Many costal areas are already too polluted for desalinization to be feasible.

Then have water treatment facilities next to the plants and build them in clean areas. :rolleyes: Even common logic says that.



Think of the contries that have been water-starved for the last century.

:rolleyes: And I haven't? :rolleyes:

[Gayowulf]

Here are some facts for you all:

over 1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water
over 2.9 billion people have no access to sanitation services.
a child dies every 8 seconds from drinking contaminated water.

China has 22% of the world's population, and 6% of its water.

The US has essentially "stolen" the Colorado river from Mexico, much of it to irrigate the deserts of Arizona and Calif., but a good eal of it to fill swimming pools in LA and Vegas.

Im sure Giancarlo knows about the Parana.

[Giancarlo]

So what the ----? I don't know about this? I am ignorant about these problems? To make desalization cheaper, more need to be built so maybe the water problems in lesser developed countries can be helped. But water treatment plants must be built overseas in underdeveloped countries.

And what was the point of that post? I am trying to make the point that Spain is trying to solve its drought problem in its Southern Region... do you have a problem with that?

Oh you are a environmentalist. :mad: :rolleyes:

And you are starting to say the poor countries should blame the developed ones for their problems. How about this? The Developed countries at one point were really poor but with hard work they developed themselves. Chile, Taiwan and South Korea are economic powers that should be considered as a world-wide model because they developed their economies into powerhouses in under fifty years. And for Chile it was twenty years. So if you stop complaining about how poor these people really are, and accept a plan like that of Chile's then maybe they will have jobs. And then clean water for that matter.

Oh by the way here are the stats for Chile:

1973 GDP Per Capita: $800
1999 GDP Per Captia: $10,000

1973 Poverty level: 70% living below poverty line
1999 Poverty Level: 15% living below poverty line

Now the people have clean water because they can pay for it.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You ever heard of desaliniziation? That will be the solution to all water problems. Israel and some rich oil Arab states use that method particularily Saudi Arabia.

Do you know how much that costs and how long that takes?! I am well sure that the UN will not have the money to buy dozens for each of the underdeveloped coastal regions. And obviously, these countries couldn't pay for it themselves either.

I wouldn't exactly call Taiwan and S. Korea "powerhouses" exactly...Stable economy? Yes. But very strong? No.

[Giancarlo]

Then they must focus on it anyways. Maybe when more are built it gets cheaper... like computers.

Taiwan and South Korea are powerhouses... categorized as one of the Tigers. Chile is nearly making into that status. Meaning that the economy is strong and diverse. The model these countries used should be adopted world-wide. Despite the Asian Financial Crisis, Taiwan and South Korea pulled through and having strong economic growth.

[conkermaniac]

The question now is "who?" Who is going to invest the money into researching more about the desalinization process?

And I don't think desalinizers are ever going to be as cheap as computers. After all, it's not like everyone is going to have 2 of those in their houses. :)

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
The question now is "who?" Who is going to invest the money into researching more about the desalinization process?

The Saudis, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. They need water, and that is what they are doing.



And I don't think desalinizers are ever going to be as cheap as computers. After all, it's not like everyone is going to have 2 of those in their houses. :)

Not in that perspective. But they will be cheaper once more are built.

[trenzterra]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You ever heard of desaliniziation? That will be the solution to all water problems. Israel and some rich oil Arab states use that method particularily Saudi Arabia. but a disalination(sp?) plant is very expensive.


using reclaimed water and reservoir water mixed together is better.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by trenzterra
but a disalination(sp?) plant is very expensive.


Not if the Rich Pro-Oil arab countries continue doing research on it. It will make the tech more cheaper.

[byrdgirl13]

everything we do to the environment now will have an impact. you bash on environmentalists who try to protect this earth, you will end up dying of thirst yourself. Everything we have comes from the earth, and trying to make green a desert will not, in the end, help the situation for anyone. i am talking a larger scale than just 5-10 years from now.

BTW, do you live in a large city? Just curious.

[wm2k1]

its a shame what Bush is doing to this planet
back out of international environmental treaties
decreasing the sizes of national forests across the nation
...all in the name of big businesses

unless we have another planetary colony some where in space, protecting our one and only home is vitual

[byrdgirl13]

You can't lay the blame on Bush alone. Holy cow. It's everyone. Every citizen who buys more than they need and throws the rest out, every person who drives a car to work alone instead of carpool, carpool instead of bus, car instead of bike. It's everyone person who takes a hot, 15 minute shower in the morning. It's everyone, every business, Bush is not making those businesses bad for the environment, he's only condoning it.

Protecting this planet is vital, but you can't lay all the responsibility on one person. Every single person in this world is responsible for the well-being of the environment, and every single person needs to do something about it. That includes you, wm2k1, and you, Giancarlo, and you, conkermaniac, and me. All of us.

[lotsofissues]

Nah,
Nuclear war will destroy us all before the whole enviromental problem becames unavoidable.

[byrdgirl13]

That was a joke, right?

[lotsofissues]

Thinking over it.
No.
I don't hold out much hope. We will eventually be ----ed.

[Archbob]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You ever heard of desaliniziation? That will be the solution to all water problems. Israel and some rich oil Arab states use that method particularily Saudi Arabia.


Let me remind you that this method is not feasible right now en masse because of economic costs.


And I, myself, am a environmentalist who is strict on conservation. Proud to be a tree- hugger. Humans have screwed over this world enough, and don't need to screw it up any more. The world would be better without people and you know it.

[Giancarlo]

I don't want to live in caves while you blinded environmentalist tree huggers try to get your point across. I am for economic progress and seeing that this planet is screwed up already I think we humans should develop better space travel and screw up a few more planets. We must follow the Chilean Model of economic capitalism or the world will die.

If you refuse to allow the heavy industrial factories to be phased out then you are making the situation worse. And that makes you a hypocrite. Let me explain: Bush pulled out of the treaties because of this: The treaties are stupidly retroactive and infact would prevent advancements in power, industry and commerce. Hydrogen power would of been stalled back for years. Fuel cells would of also been stalled for years. Your short term treaties would of done nothing to help the problem. My long term solution of massive economic growth resulting in new cleaner technologies is the only solution. Unless you want a oil refinery to stay up until 2100 because there are arbitrary laws fining companies to death. You don't understand but people want companies to develop cleaner products and that is what they are doing, but they won't do that with arbtirary laws and stupid protests. Furthermore, your so called saving the planet is completely and utterly retroactive and arbitrary. You are doing nothing but forcing companies to keep old polluting methods and not putting money towards research and development of newer techniques, rather this money is going to uneconomical and unrealistic fines. With George Bush at least something is being done about those dumb laws that do nothing but force oil companies for example to keep on burning oil because they can't develop anything newer because they spend their money on fines.


BTW, do you live in a large city? Just curious.

I live in a 16.4 million people megaopolis. One of the largest cities in the world. All taxi drivers here are running their cars off natural gas matter of fact and pollution is very low (infact the lowest in the world for a city of this size) because of low regulations on industry. There is one low polluting Nuclear Power Plant in town in the industrial section of town. Another is being built. Buenos Aires is a good model of how pollution can be kept under control. Little regulations and fines which allows industry to make new methods because they have more money. Byrdgirl and everybody else, the fact is you aren't doing anything to help the environment with arbitrary laws but prolonging the situation. You are forcing companies to keep old methods for example power companies are forced to keep coal and oil as power methods and not move towards nuclear, hydrogen and cold fusion. That in my mind is arbitrary and hypocritical as it comes.

That is just my .02 cents on the arbitrary nature of stupid "environmental laws" that just prolong the industrial problems. If you want strict laws take a look at the Soviet Union and how it was stuck in the heavy industrial age... all of Russia's cities are heavily polluted because of strict laws placed on the industry and just recently under Vladimir Putin are those environmental laws being removed.

Feel free to reply to this I would like to hear your opinions but I have nothing more to add. All of what I said is basically my entire opinion on pollution issues. I do want low pollution but that will be attained by hard-work and capitalism not regulations. I am what you call an economist trying to help the environment.

[Peo]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If you want strict laws take a look at the Soviet Union and how it was stuck in the heavy industrial age... all of Russia's cities are heavily polluted because of strict laws placed on the industry and just recently under Vladimir Putin are those environmental laws being removed.

Russia had strict environmental laws? That's simply not true. When?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Peo


Russia had strict environmental laws? That's simply not true. When?

I am sorry, but they didn't even allow private industry. Everything was state owned. My fault. The restrictions against the economy were sky-high. And I hope people read my post and see my opinion. It is lengthy, but it is my opinion.

[byrdgirl13]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I don't want to live in caves.

If you refuse to allow the heavy industrial factories to be phased out then you are making the situation worse. Your short term treaties would of done nothing to help the problem.

Furthermore, your so called saving the planet is completely and utterly retroactive and arbitrary.

I live in a 16.4 million people megaopolis. One of the largest cities in the world.

Byrdgirl and everybody else, the fact is you aren't doing anything to help the environment with arbitrary laws but prolonging the situation.

1. I'm not telling anyone to live in caves.

2. I'm not refusing to phase out heavy industry. Whose short term treaties, anyways? They aren't mine. I want separate funding for research on clean technology. Like fuel cells, alternate energy sources, I'm all for that.

3. Who are you talking to? I have not said I am saving the planet. I have not suggested anything specific here, and as for retroactive and arbitrary, I don't agree with everything that's done in the name of the environment.

4. I live in a city of maybe 45,000. I have many friends who live on farms, ride horses by their homes. I am very close to nature and am very concerned about it. People who live in such large cities do not have the same opportunities to be around nature, and more likely feel detached from it.

5. You're right; I'm not doing much to help the environment. But it's not because of your so-called arbitrary laws. It's the way I live. It's the way everyone in developed nations lives, and the way everyone in industrial nations live. The laws about the environment aren't my laws anyway. You talk as if I myself had put all the environmental laws into effect. Try not to assume so much about what I want to be done for the environment. Laws themselves don't change anything. If people's attitudes don't change, there is next to nothing we can do.

[shizzle]

Go hug a tree. Kiss a bunny.

[byrdgirl13]

Case in point. :rolleyes:

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by byrdgirl13


1. I'm not telling anyone to live in caves.

Good. But most environmentalists do.



2. I'm not refusing to phase out heavy industry.

Apparently with putting restrictions on capitalism you want to. Communism was the one that put restrictions on business, heavy restrictions and it stayed an heavy industrial economy.



Whose short term treaties, anyways? They aren't mine. I want separate funding for research on clean technology. Like fuel cells, alternate energy sources, I'm all for that.

Then let companies invest their money into those technologies instead of lawsuits with environmentalists.



4. I live in a city of maybe 45,000. I have many friends who live on farms, ride horses by their homes. I am very close to nature and am very concerned about it. People who live in such large cities do not have the same opportunities to be around nature, and more likely feel detached from it.

Buenos Aires has a massive tree project, and if you go three miles out all you will see is Pampas, meaning the biggest beef producing area in the whole world and grasslands with nothing except cows of course there.


But it's not because of your so-called arbitrary laws.

Those laws aren't mine, but are pushed by illogical organizations such as Greenpeace.



It's the way I live. It's the way everyone in developed nations lives, and the way everyone in industrial nations live.

ERR Wrong. 3/4 of pollution will be emitted by developing countries.



You talk as if I myself had put all the environmental laws into effect.

I was talking about all tree huggers.


If people's attitudes don't change, there is next to nothing we can do.

People want clean technology, not dirty technology. If I am not mistaken people don't want to breath in bad air. And as I am a capitalist the best way for money is in clean technology. Capitalism supports it.

Environmentalism doesn't and wants us to live in the past with no electricity and such. I am against that.

[Archbob]

We don't need to stop heavy industry. We just need to stop expanding it at such a high pace. You want to breathe smog, fine, but I'd rather live in a cave and breathe fresh air. I favor capitalism(I hate communism) but it doesn't matter because to expand industry(even though cleanly) means clearing more land that should have been preserved. We should make what we have right now better instead of saying (we'll cut down more first and try to make better with what we've cut down).

Its thoughts like these that screwed up the earth in the first place and if everyone thought like that, we'd be living in an ashpit by now. You may favor heavy industry at the cost of the environment but I favor strict environmental controls. Just because we've screwed the earth up so much, doesn't mean we have to screw it up some more.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Archbob
We don't need to stop heavy industry. We just need to stop expanding it at such a high pace.

That is the option in developed countries. Letting companies switch over to more profit ventures like cleaner technologies, for electric companies that would be nuclear power.


You want to breathe smog, fine, but I'd rather live in a cave and breathe fresh air.

I don't want to breathe smog and my beliefs are against it and for advancements. Environmentalists will actually reduce the research and development money in companies, actually increasing the amount of time heavy industry will be around. Therefore their protesting is retroactive.



I favor capitalism(I hate communism)

In this thread you apparently do not.



but it doesn't matter because to expand industry(even though cleanly) means clearing more land that should have been preserved.

Have I said that?



We should make what we have right now better instead of saying (we'll cut down more first and try to make better with what we've cut down).

So we can put more damn restrictions on commerce and throw the economy into the doldrums? That is why I don't want an idiot like Al Gore or Nader as president.



Its thoughts like these that screwed up the earth in the first place

How dare you say that about me! IT IS THOUGHTS LIKE YOURS THAT PROLONG PROBLEMS.



You may favor heavy industry at the cost of the environment

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR WRONG! I have said again and again I am against heavy industry, and want companies to be free from stupid controls so they can put R&D into new technologies. Maybe if you actually read my posts and stop acting like you are right about everything then maybe you would understand my position.



but I favor strict environmental controls. Just because we've screwed the earth up so much, doesn't mean we have to screw it up some more.

I never said that we should screw it up even more.

You should read my post and not make baseless assumptions about what I believe in. I am a pro-Adam Smith Free Marketer who believes that a restriction on the economy is bad, and am for advancements in technology. As capitalism progresses so will technology, and stupid roadblocks like what you present do nothing but prevent advancement.

[atlas]

I always wonder why you even post Giancarlo. I don't believe I've ever seen you conceed an argument or change your opinion on a topic you've offered up for discussion.

With that said, I believe a certain amount of regulation or incentives is needed. There often needs to be some incentive or reason for a company to look for alternative, cleaner solutions. Why would a company want to hurt their profits by researching something that will be cleaner? The general public doesn't factor in pollution when buying a product because they don't see the "enviromental cost" associated with their purchase.

I'm also wondering why you think electric companies are being stopped from building nuclear power plants -- they are simply not choosing to build them any more. The problems there are the cost of maintaining the plant with all the necessary security as well as the issue of storing the spent fuel. I do believe that nuclear power will have to be the future though since at the current pace we will quickly exaust the other possibilities.

Kill industry? I'd hardly say the car industry has been killed by the emmisions restrictions placed on cars. Or, consider when CFCs were phased out. The industry said they would be crushed. Today refrigerators are better and more efficient than ever before.

My point is not to say that we need to regulate everything, but a certain amount of it is needed. Idiotic regulation needs to go though, like some that Bush just eliminated enacted under Clinton which essentially gave benefits to energy companies for keeping and expanding high polluting plants.

I also agree that there is a problem with pollution from developing countries. It's also a reason why it'd be crazy for the US to sign the Kyoto treaty. The problem is that when the US and Europe (and other now-developed countries) were growing they generated enormous amounts of pollution, so is it fair now for the developed world to force the developing world now to grow using only more-expensive clean technology?

[Giancarlo]

The Kyoto protocols would of cost three million or more jobs and would have sent the economy reeling. Bush is giving enough incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and this incentive is subsidies.

More nuclear power plants are being planned, btw.

Have I ever proposed holding industry back in its heavy industrial stages? No. You people keep on ignoring me that I have a solution to make industry advance into the future. Your solutions are nothing more than arbitrary and not useful. Would of I supported the phasing out of leaded gasoline when it happened so long ago? You bet I would but the gas companies need assistance to make the process go smoothly with minimal job loss by subsidies. You people propose none of that and your opinions would have the future of the United States, and for that matter the world at stake.

I think it is fair for developing countries to develop their industries into old polluting ones, but lets make the process as brief as possible and that is why I support the federal grants given to companies that invest in developing countries. Thes grants were encouraged by George W. Bush. Now isn't that a surprise?

[Archbob]

Actually you do contradict yourself, even though this move in spain may sound logical to me, many other expanding industry are not. We need to replace current factories with cleaner, more efficient ones. We don't need to build more factories.

You are argueing that we should screw up the environment more, check your earlier replies. I don't think my thoughts will prolong problems at all , you obviously favor getting rid of controls, that will screw us over big time in the end.

Giancarlo, you are too stubborn, you really don't listen to other people's opinion and just try to ram your own ideas home. You'd make a great debater.

I support funding on improving old facilities, I will not support for a moment clearing land and building new ones.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Archbob
Actually you do contradict yourself, even though this move in spain may sound logical to me, many other expanding industry are not. We need to replace current factories with cleaner, more efficient ones. We don't need to build more factories.

I never contradict myself. You are wrong. The government can't replace anything or that will violate free market, the companies must replace it with subsidies like tax breaks.



You are argueing that we should screw up the environment more, check your earlier replies.

Obviously as dumb as you are you never picked up the satire in the tone of the wording. I was just kidding there... I never said anything serious about screwing the environment. I actually provided an economically safe solution.



I don't think my thoughts will prolong problems at all , you obviously favor getting rid of controls, that will screw us over big time in the end.

The only people who will get screwed by having controls is the economy. And no I don't favor getting rid of all controls but some. You my friend are screwing up the wording of what I said. Don't do it again.



Giancarlo, you are too stubborn, you really don't listen to other people's opinion and just try to ram your own ideas home. You'd make a great debater.

My opinion is here to stay and I think many believe in what I do.



I support funding on improving old facilities, I will not support for a moment clearing land and building new ones.

I never said anything clearing land and building new ones... you don't support the economy I do. The businesses must receive tax exemptions and subsidies to make the transition as best as possible when switching to a new technology. You as a fool, ignore this when I say it because of your own dumb agenda. Well I don't care.

[Jan]

Giancarlo, PLEASE stop calling people fools and idiots and numerous other names because they disagree with you.

You are quick on the report link if someone insults you, but you give out one hundredfold of insults if people don't agree with you.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jan
Giancarlo, PLEASE stop calling people fools and idiots and numerous other names because they disagree with you.

You are quick on the report link if someone insults you, but you give out one hundredfold of insults if people don't agree with you.

I call people that because a sense of overwhelming frustration with some people who do not seem to comprehend my beliefs... they still continue on with their impudent states on declaring my beliefs all wrong without reading my posts. It is really stunning.

[Toefur]

I think we should all respect the environment, and love it and care for it. :classic2:

[shizzle]

Shh, your not allowed to say anything. Giancarlo said we're impudent... whats impudent?

[Giancarlo]

Impudent:Characterized by offensive boldness; insolent or impertinent.

[Jan]

Originally posted by Ragzzz
Shh, your not allowed to say anything. whats impudent?
Rude....:confused2

It won't ever matter if we are right or wrong to GC because he IS ALWAYS RIGHT....he wants debates, but only wants to hear his side of it. This needs to stop, it is driving members away or causing them to put him on ignore. He insults anyone who gets in his way and I think that is totally wrong.

[Toefur]

But he's so cute...


Sorry, you can delete my post if you want. Rather inflamatory and offtopic, but I couldn't resist.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Toefur
But he's so cute...




Thank you... :D

Alright I will stop. Jan you can close this thread if you want or leave it open. But I will have to defend my opinion as I have been doing.

[shizzle]

insolent or impertinent

Now youve got to give me these definitions.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ragzzz


Now youve got to give me these definitions.

Look them up. :rolleyes:

I still can't believe toefur said I was cute... I am turning bright red... :biggrin2:

[Jan]

:topic:

We have gone way of topic here, so let's return to it without the personal insults.

[byrdgirl13]

Jan, you're right. He's driving away members. I don't think I want to post anymore because he's not willing to listen to anyone else's ideas, then throws out insults at us, saying we can't "comprehend" his views.
Giancarlo - I understand full well what you are saying, and I disagree with the very roots of your stubborn beliefs. I will not debate with you anymore; maybe I'll go talk to that brick wall across the street. Goodbye.

[DCI]

Originally posted by byrdgirl13
Jan, you're right. He's driving away members. I don't think I want to post anymore because he's not willing to listen to anyone else's ideas, then throws out insults at us, saying we can't "comprehend" his views.
Giancarlo - I understand full well what you are saying, and I disagree with the very roots of your stubborn beliefs. I will not debate with you anymore; maybe I'll go talk to that brick wall across the street. Goodbye.

Don't leave. We all know he's a fool. I sort of wanted to stop going here because of the fool. But now i just laugh at the fool.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by DCI


Don't leave. We all know he's a fool. I sort of wanted to stop going here because of the fool. But now i just laugh at the fool.

Despite the fact that my beliefs make sense? What is wrong with capitalism? Criticise me when you know something but do not criticise me when you don't know anything about what you are talking about. Now I am the fool? Well we will see about that. I am a supporter of capitalism, you people are supporters of heavy industrial polluted communism. And America and the world cannot have that.

Byrdgirl, it is obvious you don't know what I am saying. It is vital to understand my posts and actually read them before saying something completely illogical.

The environment is like capitalism: You cannot help the poor by punishing the rich! YOU CANNOT HELP THE WAGE EARNER BY DESTROYING THE WAGE PAYER! YOU CANNOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT BY DESTROYING THE COMPANY! YOU CANNOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT BY HURTING THE CEO! Say no to excessive bureaucracy and controls.

[DCI]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Despite the fact that my beliefs make sense? What is wrong with capitalism? Criticise me when you know something but do not criticise me when you don't know anything about what you are talking about. Now I am the fool? Well we will see about that. I am a supporter of capitalism, you people are supporters of heavy industrial polluted communism. And America and the world cannot have that.

Byrdgirl, it is obvious you don't know what I am saying. It is vital to understand my posts and actually read them before saying something completely illogical.

The environment is like capitalism: You cannot help the poor by punishing the rich! YOU CANNOT HELP THE WAGE EARNER BY DESTROYING THE WAGE PAYER! YOU CANNOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT BY DESTROYING THE COMPANY! YOU CANNOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT BY HURTING THE CEO! Say no to excessive bureaucracy and controls.

Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla.

[Archbob]

Giancarlo, you try to preach your ideas into our minds, it doesn't work. Its just that the majority of us don't agree at all with your views. They may seem great to you and make perfect sense to you, but they don't work for us. We have other ideas on how the government should be run.

You can be compared to a fundementalist trying to convert us, they think they make sense, we do not think they make sense.


Oh by the ways, you can help the environment by destorying industry. If we didn't have all the factories, machines, cars, and other crap, the environment would be better. We'd all be dead(except for a few of us) but the earth would be a nicer place.

[atlas]

Why do you even post these topics Giancarlo? I don't believe I've ever seen you conceed an argument, admit someone may have a valid point, or change your opinion on a topic you've offered up for discussion.

Why post? Do you really want to hear others opinions, or do you post just so you can get mad at others?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Archbob
Oh by the ways, you can help the environment by destorying industry. If we didn't have all the factories, machines, cars, and other crap, the environment would be better. We'd all be dead(except for a few of us) but the earth would be a nicer place.

But we are here and our future will be bright as long as you environmentalists don't screw it up. I want a future not one of poor economic conditions.

[shizzle]

There wont even be economic conditions unless we save the damn earth! Gian... if everyone is dead... there will be no damn economy!

[syd]

I have an easy solution. Elect me to supreme ruler of all. My reforms:

- Anybody who doesn't cut the plastic 6 packs (resulting in the death of fish) will be punished by being tied up with plastic and being forced to listen to a speech about economics.

- Bathing will be forbidden (saves water!)

- Radioactive material will be contained and sent to Australia (29 fingers can make opening pickle jars much easier!)

- I will enslave the nation of Spain and Italy into creating energy-efficient power plants

- I will rename myself to "Il Duce"

VOTE FOR ME IN 2004 :D

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ragzzz
There wont even be economic conditions unless we save the damn earth! Gian... if everyone is dead... there will be no damn economy!

Why don't we execute two billion people to fit your Stalinist industrialization program?

I don't propose against the environment, but I propose for the economy aswell. Something you 'people' don't do. Thank goodness you are the unlucky minority of thinkers in the US.

SYD: Get out of my thread.

[syd]

uh, no?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by syd
uh, no?

Alright fine.

I sent an private message to peo or todd to have this thread closed.

[syd]

I don't know why'd they'd close it... all I did was talk about ruling the universe. I guess that's a crime nowadays? :confused:

[Jan]

Peo and I already discussed closing this thread. IF it remains on topic it will stay open, now back to environmental isses please.

[Giancarlo]

Syd: You are spamming and screwing my thread up. And this thread is a problem.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jan
Peo and I already discussed closing this thread. IF it remains on topic it will stay open, now back to environmental isses please.

On request, I want this thread closed immediately. It is not about environmental issue. And I will press this issue until it is closed.

[shizzle]

actually, it was about environmental issues until the words "syd, get the hell out of my thread". Please gian, stop messin all the threads up.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ragzzz
actually, it was about environmental issues until the words "syd, get the hell out of my thread". Please gian, stop messin all the threads up.

ERR WRONG. THis is my thread and you quit messing it up. I have contact Peo and Todd requesting it be closed and I believe my request will be met.

[Jan]

I will save them the trouble, they have better things to do with their time.....:confused2