MSNBC socialist Sees the Light.

[Synthaholic]

Like I said yesterday, the headline, and this thread are both lies.

O'Donnell talked about his car accident and being flown to NYC for surgery. When he got there he noticed he was being wheeled into the David Koch Wing of the best surgery center in the world.

It got him speaking about all the charitable donations that the Kochs give. I've talked about that myself on USMB. David Koch is the primary benefactor to the NY Opera, and many medical and arts and cultural institutions.

O'Donnell then went on to say that he still finds their politics reprehensible, but also quotes F. Scott Fitzgerald:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"


Here - you can watch for yourself. It's a very moving segment:


Lawrence returns, discusses his accident
Lawrence O’Donnell returns to The Last Word and talks about his accident, about the doctors and nurses who helped him heal... and also how David Koch helped.

Lawrence returns, discusses his accident | MSNBC

He starts talking about the Kochs around the 8 minute mark.



As for the OP author, it's another case where if a conservative didn't lie he would have nothing to say.

 

[Andylusion]

This remark shows your unintelligence of the tax code in general....

I think there can be changes, but not until unintelligent people like YOU understand the tax system we are using and stop taking "Fox News" word for it.


Learn more, type less please.

ROFL! So you insist that donating to charity means you will have more money after you make the donation than before? Why don't you test this theory out yourself and let me know how it works out for ya, retard.

So you don't know that rich people donate to charities to stay in lower tax brackets?........ADVANCED stuff right here kids....Just embarrassed for you..

Ugh....
I am not going to be a jerk. I'm not going to be insulting.

I'm just going to explain how this work.

It is not possible for you to come out ahead, using a tax deduction. Please hear me out.

The way that a tax deduction works, is the amount of the deduction, is chopped off the top of your taxable income.

So how does this work.

Let us say that you earn $50,000 a year. Let us also say you buy a reasonable home, with a mortgage, and you get the mortgage deduction. For the sake of simplicity, let us say the interest on your mortgage is $5,000 a year.

You get to deduct, $5,000 from your taxable income. Which means, $5,000 of your income, is not taxed.

What is your income tax rate? For Head of Household income of $50,000, your tax rate is 25%.

25% of $5,000 of your income that is not taxed.... is.... $1,250.

By spending $5,000 in interest to the bank to get that $5,000 tax deduction.... you saved a massive $1,250.

This is how *ALL* deductions works. There is no possible way, that you can use a deduction, to save more money in taxes, than you spent to get the deduction.

But it lowers their tax bracket!

Which reduces how much money you save.

Again same example as above:

$50,000 filing as head of household. $49,000 or less, is the 15% tax bracket. Getting a $5,000 mortgage interest deduction, lowers your income to $45,000, which is below the 25% tax bracket.

So how much money is saved?

Well the $1,000 between $49K and $50K is 25%. So $250. The $4,000 below the $49K, is 15%, which is $600.

So now you spent $5,000 in interest, to get a $5,000 tax deduction, which saved you...... $850.

Conclusion.........

When rich people give money to charity, they are giving FAR FAR VASTLY MORE to charity, than they ever save on taxes.

Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities.

 

[AntiParty]

ROFL! So you insist that donating to charity means you will have more money after you make the donation than before? Why don't you test this theory out yourself and let me know how it works out for ya, retard.

So you don't know that rich people donate to charities to stay in lower tax brackets?........ADVANCED stuff right here kids....Just embarrassed for you..

Ugh....
I am not going to be a jerk. I'm not going to be insulting.

I'm just going to explain how this work.

It is not possible for you to come out ahead, using a tax deduction. Please hear me out.

The way that a tax deduction works, is the amount of the deduction, is chopped off the top of your taxable income.

So how does this work.

Let us say that you earn $50,000 a year. Let us also say you buy a reasonable home, with a mortgage, and you get the mortgage deduction. For the sake of simplicity, let us say the interest on your mortgage is $5,000 a year.

You get to deduct, $5,000 from your taxable income. Which means, $5,000 of your income, is not taxed.

What is your income tax rate? For Head of Household income of $50,000, your tax rate is 25%.

25% of $5,000 of your income that is not taxed.... is.... $1,250.

By spending $5,000 in interest to the bank to get that $5,000 tax deduction.... you saved a massive $1,250.

This is how *ALL* deductions works. There is no possible way, that you can use a deduction, to save more money in taxes, than you spent to get the deduction.

But it lowers their tax bracket!

Which reduces how much money you save.

Again same example as above:

$50,000 filing as head of household. $49,000 or less, is the 15% tax bracket. Getting a $5,000 mortgage interest deduction, lowers your income to $45,000, which is below the 25% tax bracket.

So how much money is saved?

Well the $1,000 between $49K and $50K is 25%. So $250. The $4,000 below the $49K, is 15%, which is $600.

So now you spent $5,000 in interest, to get a $5,000 tax deduction, which saved you...... $850.

Conclusion.........

When rich people give money to charity, they are giving FAR FAR VASTLY MORE to charity, than they ever save on taxes.

Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities.

I'll quote you, "Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities."

Your argument is comical.

 

[Andylusion]

So you don't know that rich people donate to charities to stay in lower tax brackets?........ADVANCED stuff right here kids....Just embarrassed for you..

Ugh....
I am not going to be a jerk. I'm not going to be insulting.

I'm just going to explain how this work.

It is not possible for you to come out ahead, using a tax deduction. Please hear me out.

The way that a tax deduction works, is the amount of the deduction, is chopped off the top of your taxable income.

So how does this work.

Let us say that you earn $50,000 a year. Let us also say you buy a reasonable home, with a mortgage, and you get the mortgage deduction. For the sake of simplicity, let us say the interest on your mortgage is $5,000 a year.

You get to deduct, $5,000 from your taxable income. Which means, $5,000 of your income, is not taxed.

What is your income tax rate? For Head of Household income of $50,000, your tax rate is 25%.

25% of $5,000 of your income that is not taxed.... is.... $1,250.

By spending $5,000 in interest to the bank to get that $5,000 tax deduction.... you saved a massive $1,250.

This is how *ALL* deductions works. There is no possible way, that you can use a deduction, to save more money in taxes, than you spent to get the deduction.

But it lowers their tax bracket!

Which reduces how much money you save.

Again same example as above:

$50,000 filing as head of household. $49,000 or less, is the 15% tax bracket. Getting a $5,000 mortgage interest deduction, lowers your income to $45,000, which is below the 25% tax bracket.

So how much money is saved?

Well the $1,000 between $49K and $50K is 25%. So $250. The $4,000 below the $49K, is 15%, which is $600.

So now you spent $5,000 in interest, to get a $5,000 tax deduction, which saved you...... $850.

Conclusion.........

When rich people give money to charity, they are giving FAR FAR VASTLY MORE to charity, than they ever save on taxes.

Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities.

I'll quote you, "Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities."

Your argument is comical.

How? What part of my argument doesn't make sense to you? Or do you think I'm wrong?

 

[Pete7469]

I love stuff like this. All you haters can go to hell.
MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience

I wouldn't call it a 180.

He's still a bed wetting moonbat, he just doesn't hate the Koch brothers as much anymore.

 

[AntiParty]

Ugh....
I am not going to be a jerk. I'm not going to be insulting.

I'm just going to explain how this work.

It is not possible for you to come out ahead, using a tax deduction. Please hear me out.

The way that a tax deduction works, is the amount of the deduction, is chopped off the top of your taxable income.

So how does this work.

Let us say that you earn $50,000 a year. Let us also say you buy a reasonable home, with a mortgage, and you get the mortgage deduction. For the sake of simplicity, let us say the interest on your mortgage is $5,000 a year.

You get to deduct, $5,000 from your taxable income. Which means, $5,000 of your income, is not taxed.

What is your income tax rate? For Head of Household income of $50,000, your tax rate is 25%.

25% of $5,000 of your income that is not taxed.... is.... $1,250.

By spending $5,000 in interest to the bank to get that $5,000 tax deduction.... you saved a massive $1,250.

This is how *ALL* deductions works. There is no possible way, that you can use a deduction, to save more money in taxes, than you spent to get the deduction.

But it lowers their tax bracket!

Which reduces how much money you save.

Again same example as above:

$50,000 filing as head of household. $49,000 or less, is the 15% tax bracket. Getting a $5,000 mortgage interest deduction, lowers your income to $45,000, which is below the 25% tax bracket.

So how much money is saved?

Well the $1,000 between $49K and $50K is 25%. So $250. The $4,000 below the $49K, is 15%, which is $600.

So now you spent $5,000 in interest, to get a $5,000 tax deduction, which saved you...... $850.

Conclusion.........

When rich people give money to charity, they are giving FAR FAR VASTLY MORE to charity, than they ever save on taxes.

Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities.

I'll quote you, "Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities."

Your argument is comical.

How? What part of my argument doesn't make sense to you? Or do you think I'm wrong?

YOU stated that they don't donate to charity because of the tax deductions. Later you state "they would rather give to charities than the Government".

You ARE wrong. Your argument made perfect sense. Your statements conflict each other. You seem to think the rich donate out of "goodwill" and not because they can make more profit if they do donate...

Or maybe you thought there was actually an option for businesses to keep all their profits and make less money in our tax system....

Only way to do that is to do what Romney does. Hide it oversea's.

 

[Andylusion]

I'll quote you, "Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities."

Your argument is comical.

How? What part of my argument doesn't make sense to you? Or do you think I'm wrong?

YOU stated that they don't donate to charity because of the tax deductions. Later you state "they would rather give to charities than the Government".

You ARE wrong. Your argument made perfect sense. Your statements conflict each other. You seem to think the rich donate out of "goodwill" and not because they can make more profit if they do donate...

Or maybe you thought there was actually an option for businesses to keep all their profits and make less money in our tax system....

Only way to do that is to do what Romney does. Hide it oversea's.

No, they don't. I never said they do not donate to charity, and claim a tax write off.

I said, that they don't do it to 'save' money. You can't 'save' money by taking a tax deduction.

Rich people rather give a charity, than give to government. That's true. But they are not "saving" money by taking a tax deduction.

You made this statement originally....

Today, the Rich are looking for ways to donate to charities because it's more profitable

"Profitable"

No. You fail. You are ignorant. You can not make a profit off of giving to charity. I spelled out how tax deductions work, and there is no possible way you can make a tax deductible donation, that results in you having more money (profit) than how much you lost in getting the deduction.

Now you can reduce you tax bill.... yes, but only by paying/giving MORE than how much you would have paid in taxes. It's a not a "profitable" action.

If the rich were only exclusively interested in just making themselves more wealthy, they would never give a penny to any charity anywhere, and the full cost of the taxes would be lower than the charity they would have to give.

Thus they would be more profitable, and more wealthy without giving anything to charity.

Again, why do they do it? Because they like giving to charity, so that the slight offset in taxes is worth being less wealthy, because they are donating to a good cause, instead of government leftards who can't figure out that the national deficit was HIGHER under Obama than Bush.

 

[Ibentoken]

I'll quote you, "Why do they do it? Because they still still rather give to a charity, than give to government. Rich people know government is a massive waste of money. They would much rather give to charities."

Your argument is comical.

How? What part of my argument doesn't make sense to you? Or do you think I'm wrong?

YOU stated that they don't donate to charity because of the tax deductions. Later you state "they would rather give to charities than the Government".

You ARE wrong. Your argument made perfect sense. Your statements conflict each other. You seem to think the rich donate out of "goodwill" and not because they can make more profit if they do donate...

Or maybe you thought there was actually an option for businesses to keep all their profits and make less money in our tax system....

Only way to do that is to do what Romney does. Hide it oversea's.

When rich liberals donate to charity are their motives pure?

 

[HenryBHough]

How? What part of my argument doesn't make sense to you? Or do you think I'm wrong?

YOU stated that they don't donate to charity because of the tax deductions. Later you state "they would rather give to charities than the Government".

You ARE wrong. Your argument made perfect sense. Your statements conflict each other. You seem to think the rich donate out of "goodwill" and not because they can make more profit if they do donate...

Or maybe you thought there was actually an option for businesses to keep all their profits and make less money in our tax system....

Only way to do that is to do what Romney does. Hide it oversea's.

When rich liberals donate to charity are their motives pure?

Please cite one example of any liberal donating to any worthy cause that does not, at its heart, set out to indoctrinate the innocent. Betcha can't!

 

[ABikerSailor]

How? What part of my argument doesn't make sense to you? Or do you think I'm wrong?

YOU stated that they don't donate to charity because of the tax deductions. Later you state "they would rather give to charities than the Government".

You ARE wrong. Your argument made perfect sense. Your statements conflict each other. You seem to think the rich donate out of "goodwill" and not because they can make more profit if they do donate...

Or maybe you thought there was actually an option for businesses to keep all their profits and make less money in our tax system....

Only way to do that is to do what Romney does. Hide it oversea's.

When rich liberals donate to charity are their motives pure?

Dunno................but quick question................when conservatives donate to super PACS, and have backers like Sheldon Addelson and the Koch brothers, are THEIR motives pure?

They're motives aren't pure, they just want to buy a government that will support their own views.

Wanna talk about Grover Norquist?

 

[HenryBHough]

Grover who?

Old news (quoth da Hillary) - What difference does that make?

 

[Andylusion]

YOU stated that they don't donate to charity because of the tax deductions. Later you state "they would rather give to charities than the Government".

You ARE wrong. Your argument made perfect sense. Your statements conflict each other. You seem to think the rich donate out of "goodwill" and not because they can make more profit if they do donate...

Or maybe you thought there was actually an option for businesses to keep all their profits and make less money in our tax system....

Only way to do that is to do what Romney does. Hide it oversea's.

When rich liberals donate to charity are their motives pure?

Dunno................but quick question................when conservatives donate to super PACS, and have backers like Sheldon Addelson and the Koch brothers, are THEIR motives pure?

They're motives aren't pure, they just want to buy a government that will support their own views.

Wanna talk about Grover Norquist?

But here's the difference... we don't assume either way. You do.

Dan Carlin had a statement a few months ago where he wanted to openly ban all money influence in politics. There was massive support from the left-wing on his board until he pointed out... no more teachers Union, or UAW influence, no Green Peace influence, no Universities.

And the response was? 'Wait, we like those groups.' Hypocrites.

The problem with the left system, is that your system automatically creates the issues that you complain about.

You want to end lobbying for tax deductions and cuts? Reduce tax rates. If *YOU* had to pay $10 million in taxes, and for $2 Million in lobbying you could cut your tax rate in half, saving $5 Million... Would you do it? Of course you would.

What if your tax rate was already cut in half, would you spend $2 Million then? No, it's not worth it. The amount saved doesn't justify spending that much money.

Rich people would rather not spend a dime on politics in general. They do so because it cost too much to not engage.

Similarly, regulations cost billions. If a company is spending $10 Million meeting regulations, and for $2 Million they could lobby for an exemption, then they do it. And *YOU* would too.

Equally, if the government is giving out $10 Million in government grants, and for a Million dollars you can have some of that money directed your way, what do you do? You spend the million, and get your business some money.

See, the problem with the left is, they want an impossible utopian dream. You want a government that can tax as much as they like, regulate as much as they like, give out money by the bucket loads, and yet never be influenced by anyone on anything.

Well crap, that's never going to happen. There has never been a time in all of human history, up to the present age where a government taxes, regulating, and doling out money, has not been influenced by those in positions of influence.

As long as you tax, regulate, and spend, there are going to be people to influence those taxes, regulations and spending.

Especially in a freedom based society, where engaging in politics is a right of the citizenship, you are not going to eliminate influence.

This is why in every leftist dictatorship, eliminate political freedom, and free speech, is the defacto standard.

You can't say people have the freedom to engage in politics, only when they support you. And if you create a situation where is it profitable to lobby congress, then that's what people are going to do, and the Politicians love it. In fact, the politicians encourage it.

You created the system that you hate. Stop it. Stop supporting ever growing regulations, taxes, and handouts, and those problems will die off.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno.................I think I might like you.

You've been gracious enough to show where the lobbyists are wrong.

Of COURSE if I could only spend 2 million dollars and save over 10 million, I would.

But...................if in the course of saving that 8 million dollars I would screw over the world, and very possibly jeopardize the lives of my children and grandchildren?

If it's a Sophie's choice of saving my children from poverty, or saving them from a non-inhabitable planet, I'd say let them grow up poor.

At least...............if you can breathe..............you can live.

If you can live...................maybe you can develop something to help your fellow man.

If you develop something to help your fellow man.............I can guarantee...........you're gonna be rich.

Oh..................by the way...................you're statement saying that rich people would rather not spend money on politics? Sorry..........Wanna talk about Sheldon Addelson? How about the Koch Brothers?

The only reason they spend money is so they can cut costs by having regulations lifted.

But...............then again..................that's pretty much the only reason that rich people donate to political causes. They keep hoping that we end up with an oligarchy (and if you don't know what that means, use your Internet to find out the definition.)

 

[Andylusion]

Yanno.................I think I might like you.

You've been gracious enough to show where the lobbyists are wrong.

Of COURSE if I could only spend 2 million dollars and save over 10 million, I would.

But...................if in the course of saving that 8 million dollars I would screw over the world, and very possibly jeopardize the lives of my children and grandchildren?

If it's a Sophie's choice of saving my children from poverty, or saving them from a non-inhabitable planet, I'd say let them grow up poor.

At least...............if you can breathe..............you can live.

If you can live...................maybe you can develop something to help your fellow man.

If you develop something to help your fellow man.............I can guarantee...........you're gonna be rich.

Oh..................by the way...................you're statement saying that rich people would rather not spend money on politics? Sorry..........Wanna talk about Sheldon Addelson? How about the Koch Brothers?

The only reason they spend money is so they can cut costs by having regulations lifted.

But...............then again..................that's pretty much the only reason that rich people donate to political causes. They keep hoping that we end up with an oligarchy (and if you don't know what that means, use your Internet to find out the definition.)

And if everything was so clear cut as "save money or the planet", then the choices would be obvious and easy. The problem is, the only time choices are that clear cut, is in mythical examples on an internet forum.

In the real world, things get blurry real fast.

Everything, meaning absolutely everything, that man does, has an effect on the environment. Building just a basic home, causes damage to the environment. Should we ban home building?

Take the arsenic mandate Bill Clinton passed, just before leaving office. This regulation required that arsenic levels in mining water, be lower than that which is naturally in ground water. Of course, this is ridiculous to require mining companies to clean the arsenic from natural water.

Or how about radiation regulations, that are so low, that Grand Central Station in New York, should be declared a radiation hazard. Granite rock naturally emits radiation, and by regulation should be closed.

In fact, the entire Granite industry should be banned. That Granite counter top in your kitchen is going to kill you.

At what point do regulations do more harm than good? You can say "my kids should grow up poor with a clean planet", but is that really what you think? Move them to Central Africa then. Very clean. Very pure. And very poor. But no Arsenic from mines, or radiation from Granite.

Why are they trying so hard to get here, if a super clean planet is better?

Another example would be food and pesticides. Without spraying the crops, there won't be food. But of course pesticides are by their nature, toxic. At what point do we regulate ourselves into starvation? Would your kids really be better off that way?

These are not so simple, clear cut regulatory measures, and most regulations have nothing to do with 'saving the planet' as if.

As for the rich people, the exceptions don't disprove the generality. How many millionaires are in the US today? Just about 8.5 Million millionaires. Of that 8.5 Million, how many are Addelsons and Koshs? Three? How many more are like them? A dozen or so? Maybe even 50? 8.5 Million millionaires, and only a couple dozen involved in politics.

Even those that are, are often doing so defensively. My favorite example is Microsoft. Prior to 1998, there is no record of any individual, or any corporate action involved in politics. But Microsoft was rich, and the politicians wanted money.

They cooked up a completely fabricated anti-trust suit, and dragged Microsoft into court. Starting in late 1998, they opened up their own Washington, DC office, hired lobbyists, formed their own PAC, and from the year 2000 on, Microsoft has spent no less than $6 Million every year on lobbying. The "protection money" worked. The anti-trust suit, which was a complete fraud to begin with, was eventually settled to almost no effect.

This is the reality. Most of the rich are only engaged in politics because if they don't, the organized crime family formally known as "congress" will tear them apart. They have to pay off the crime syndicate with protection money, just to keep them out of their lives.

From there, it's a short jump to "well if I have to pay $6 Million a year to keep the government from ruining my company, I might as well get some perks for it" and soon you have regulations that the military must use Windows for its battleships, which then has a blue screen of death, leaving it disabled out on the water, and has to be towed back to port.

I would stake my paycheck on the idea that if Government Mafia had not fabricated an anti-trust suit in 1998, Microsoft would not be involved in politics to this day. The reason they are is because of politicians shaking down companies, in the name of the public good. They are not worried about ruining the planet, as much as they are selling exemptions to the highest bidder.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I guess you missed the whole scientific thing that says we're all interconnected, because junk from Japan and pollution from China affects the United States, just as we will have an impact on Europe.

Move to South America? Might be a plan for the short term, but as industrial nations decide to burn fossil fuels, the pollution will still kill the planet just the same.

Yeah..................might be able to get a couple of more years if you're living with the native tribes in the heart of the Amazon, but it's only gonna buy you a couple of more years.

I'd be happier if we could stop crapping up the planet and actually start to figure out how to live here without killing ourselves or those who are going to be our descendants.

 

[Andylusion]

I guess you missed the whole scientific thing that says we're all interconnected, because junk from Japan and pollution from China affects the United States, just as we will have an impact on Europe.

Move to South America? Might be a plan for the short term, but as industrial nations decide to burn fossil fuels, the pollution will still kill the planet just the same.

Yeah..................might be able to get a couple of more years if you're living with the native tribes in the heart of the Amazon, but it's only gonna buy you a couple of more years.

I'd be happier if we could stop crapping up the planet and actually start to figure out how to live here without killing ourselves or those who are going to be our descendants.

Well, we can just do as I suggested, and ban spraying crops. The mass starvation the would result, will fix the problem pretty quick.

The difference between us, is that I don't believe the sky is falling yet. Chicken little, has been screaming that we're going to make the planet uninhabitable for over 100 years. I haven't yet seen a single individually fall over dead yet from pollution from China or Japan. Life expectancy continues to go up, year over year.

The biggest problem we have is homicide, not pollution.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I guess you missed the whole scientific thing that says we're all interconnected, because junk from Japan and pollution from China affects the United States, just as we will have an impact on Europe.

Move to South America? Might be a plan for the short term, but as industrial nations decide to burn fossil fuels, the pollution will still kill the planet just the same.

Yeah..................might be able to get a couple of more years if you're living with the native tribes in the heart of the Amazon, but it's only gonna buy you a couple of more years.

I'd be happier if we could stop crapping up the planet and actually start to figure out how to live here without killing ourselves or those who are going to be our descendants.

Well, we can just do as I suggested, and ban spraying crops. The mass starvation the would result, will fix the problem pretty quick.

The difference between us, is that I don't believe the sky is falling yet. Chicken little, has been screaming that we're going to make the planet uninhabitable for over 100 years. I haven't yet seen a single individually fall over dead yet from pollution from China or Japan. Life expectancy continues to go up, year over year.

The biggest problem we have is homicide, not pollution.

Quick question................have you ever heard about the experiment that involves a frog and a pot of slowly heating water that comes to a boil?

Sorry, but the water starts to heat up in a gradual way, and the frog doesn't even know it's being boiled alive until the bubbles start showing up on the sides of the pot.

We're about a year or two away before the first bubbles start to show up and pop. We're almost at the boiling point right now.

And no...............it's not that we're going to make the planet inhabitable for the next 100 years as you've suggested, it's that we're going to make the planet inhabitable in the NEXT 100 years, and after that, all human life is going to go the way of the dodo.

And.................if you haven't seen anyone keel over from pollution, wanna talk about those who have asthma, or the older people who are told to stay indoors when the pollution is at it's zenith?

They're told to stay indoors for a reason, and the reason is so that they don't die.

During the 70's and the 80's, many people dropped dead (granted many were older or had breathing problems) from pollution.

Might wanna use that computer of yours to do some research on what you speak of, rather than just push bumperstickers, rants and rhetoric that you heard from talk radio.

I hear that Google and Wikipedia are pretty good tools for doing that.

 

[Andylusion]

I guess you missed the whole scientific thing that says we're all interconnected, because junk from Japan and pollution from China affects the United States, just as we will have an impact on Europe.

Move to South America? Might be a plan for the short term, but as industrial nations decide to burn fossil fuels, the pollution will still kill the planet just the same.

Yeah..................might be able to get a couple of more years if you're living with the native tribes in the heart of the Amazon, but it's only gonna buy you a couple of more years.

I'd be happier if we could stop crapping up the planet and actually start to figure out how to live here without killing ourselves or those who are going to be our descendants.

Well, we can just do as I suggested, and ban spraying crops. The mass starvation the would result, will fix the problem pretty quick.

The difference between us, is that I don't believe the sky is falling yet. Chicken little, has been screaming that we're going to make the planet uninhabitable for over 100 years. I haven't yet seen a single individually fall over dead yet from pollution from China or Japan. Life expectancy continues to go up, year over year.

The biggest problem we have is homicide, not pollution.

Quick question................have you ever heard about the experiment that involves a frog and a pot of slowly heating water that comes to a boil?

Sorry, but the water starts to heat up in a gradual way, and the frog doesn't even know it's being boiled alive until the bubbles start showing up on the sides of the pot.

We're about a year or two away before the first bubbles start to show up and pop. We're almost at the boiling point right now.

And no...............it's not that we're going to make the planet inhabitable for the next 100 years as you've suggested, it's that we're going to make the planet inhabitable in the NEXT 100 years, and after that, all human life is going to go the way of the dodo.

And.................if you haven't seen anyone keel over from pollution, wanna talk about those who have asthma, or the older people who are told to stay indoors when the pollution is at it's zenith?

They're told to stay indoors for a reason, and the reason is so that they don't die.

During the 70's and the 80's, many people dropped dead (granted many were older or had breathing problems) from pollution.

Might wanna use that computer of yours to do some research on what you speak of, rather than just push bumperstickers, rants and rhetoric that you heard from talk radio.

I hear that Google and Wikipedia are pretty good tools for doing that.

Yeah, because Google and Wikipedia are divine truth, but radio is automatically wrong.

As someone who personally suffers from asthma, the worst place I can be is on a farm out in the country. I've lived in the city my whole life. Haven't dropped dead yet.

As for the sky is falling frog bit.... yeah. I can look back at news stories from the early 1900s and they said we only have a few years left. They said it again in the 1950s. Then in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And now today we still only have a few more years and it's over. We're all doomed.

For the last hundred years we heard that we only have a few more years. Here's the truth. You don't know what you are talking about. All of the models, and predictions, and doom and gloom of the inevitable end of the planet, have all been wrong. They've been wrong for 100 years, and are still wrong today, and will be wrong for the next 100 years.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, we can just do as I suggested, and ban spraying crops. The mass starvation the would result, will fix the problem pretty quick.

The difference between us, is that I don't believe the sky is falling yet. Chicken little, has been screaming that we're going to make the planet uninhabitable for over 100 years. I haven't yet seen a single individually fall over dead yet from pollution from China or Japan. Life expectancy continues to go up, year over year.

The biggest problem we have is homicide, not pollution.

Quick question................have you ever heard about the experiment that involves a frog and a pot of slowly heating water that comes to a boil?

Sorry, but the water starts to heat up in a gradual way, and the frog doesn't even know it's being boiled alive until the bubbles start showing up on the sides of the pot.

We're about a year or two away before the first bubbles start to show up and pop. We're almost at the boiling point right now.

And no...............it's not that we're going to make the planet inhabitable for the next 100 years as you've suggested, it's that we're going to make the planet inhabitable in the NEXT 100 years, and after that, all human life is going to go the way of the dodo.

And.................if you haven't seen anyone keel over from pollution, wanna talk about those who have asthma, or the older people who are told to stay indoors when the pollution is at it's zenith?

They're told to stay indoors for a reason, and the reason is so that they don't die.

During the 70's and the 80's, many people dropped dead (granted many were older or had breathing problems) from pollution.

Might wanna use that computer of yours to do some research on what you speak of, rather than just push bumperstickers, rants and rhetoric that you heard from talk radio.

I hear that Google and Wikipedia are pretty good tools for doing that.

Yeah, because Google and Wikipedia are divine truth, but radio is automatically wrong.

As someone who personally suffers from asthma, the worst place I can be is on a farm out in the country. I've lived in the city my whole life. Haven't dropped dead yet.

As for the sky is falling frog bit.... yeah. I can look back at news stories from the early 1900s and they said we only have a few years left. They said it again in the 1950s. Then in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And now today we still only have a few more years and it's over. We're all doomed.

For the last hundred years we heard that we only have a few more years. Here's the truth. You don't know what you are talking about. All of the models, and predictions, and doom and gloom of the inevitable end of the planet, have all been wrong. They've been wrong for 100 years, and are still wrong today, and will be wrong for the next 100 years.

Nope, never said that Google or Wikipedia were the divine truth, but however, if you Google something, you can get the views on both sides of the fence because there is room on the 'net for opposing views.

If you look something up on Wikipedia, you're going to get a start in the right direction, because Wikipedia requires verifications of the information you post, or they will delete it.

Radio? Well..............most of those people can pontificate about almost any subject they want, and don't have to back it up with facts, only use rhetoric to turn the people to their views. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh as well as many others come to mind. They don't have facts behind them, but their rhetoric sounds like gospel (even if it's full of flaws, half truths and plain wrong facts).

If you have asthma, no..................sorry..............but the BEST place you can be is somewhere out in the country. Cities have had smog warnings (check out L.A. in the 70's and 80's), and they told those with breathing problems (i.e. older people and those with asthma) to stay inside so that they didn't suffer complications from breathing polluted air.

I'm wondering how well you'd do in the big cities of China like Beijing? Even Olympic athletes (who have a much better 02 uptake than you do) were loathe to go there to compete because of the dirty air.

And yeah...............in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, they were trying to warn us not to cross over the tipping point.

Only trouble is...............we've finally hit it.

Want some oceanfront property in Arizona (like in the popular country and western song)? Wait around 20 years or so, and you may have it.

 

[Andylusion]

Quick question................have you ever heard about the experiment that involves a frog and a pot of slowly heating water that comes to a boil?

Sorry, but the water starts to heat up in a gradual way, and the frog doesn't even know it's being boiled alive until the bubbles start showing up on the sides of the pot.

We're about a year or two away before the first bubbles start to show up and pop. We're almost at the boiling point right now.

And no...............it's not that we're going to make the planet inhabitable for the next 100 years as you've suggested, it's that we're going to make the planet inhabitable in the NEXT 100 years, and after that, all human life is going to go the way of the dodo.

And.................if you haven't seen anyone keel over from pollution, wanna talk about those who have asthma, or the older people who are told to stay indoors when the pollution is at it's zenith?

They're told to stay indoors for a reason, and the reason is so that they don't die.

During the 70's and the 80's, many people dropped dead (granted many were older or had breathing problems) from pollution.

Might wanna use that computer of yours to do some research on what you speak of, rather than just push bumperstickers, rants and rhetoric that you heard from talk radio.

I hear that Google and Wikipedia are pretty good tools for doing that.

Yeah, because Google and Wikipedia are divine truth, but radio is automatically wrong.

As someone who personally suffers from asthma, the worst place I can be is on a farm out in the country. I've lived in the city my whole life. Haven't dropped dead yet.

As for the sky is falling frog bit.... yeah. I can look back at news stories from the early 1900s and they said we only have a few years left. They said it again in the 1950s. Then in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And now today we still only have a few more years and it's over. We're all doomed.

For the last hundred years we heard that we only have a few more years. Here's the truth. You don't know what you are talking about. All of the models, and predictions, and doom and gloom of the inevitable end of the planet, have all been wrong. They've been wrong for 100 years, and are still wrong today, and will be wrong for the next 100 years.

Nope, never said that Google or Wikipedia were the divine truth, but however, if you Google something, you can get the views on both sides of the fence because there is room on the 'net for opposing views.

If you look something up on Wikipedia, you're going to get a start in the right direction, because Wikipedia requires verifications of the information you post, or they will delete it.

Radio? Well..............most of those people can pontificate about almost any subject they want, and don't have to back it up with facts, only use rhetoric to turn the people to their views. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh as well as many others come to mind. They don't have facts behind them, but their rhetoric sounds like gospel (even if it's full of flaws, half truths and plain wrong facts).

If you have asthma, no..................sorry..............but the BEST place you can be is somewhere out in the country. Cities have had smog warnings (check out L.A. in the 70's and 80's), and they told those with breathing problems (i.e. older people and those with asthma) to stay inside so that they didn't suffer complications from breathing polluted air.

I'm wondering how well you'd do in the big cities of China like Beijing? Even Olympic athletes (who have a much better 02 uptake than you do) were loathe to go there to compete because of the dirty air.

And yeah...............in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, they were trying to warn us not to cross over the tipping point.

Only trouble is...............we've finally hit it.

Want some oceanfront property in Arizona (like in the popular country and western song)? Wait around 20 years or so, and you may have it.

I've caught more than a dozens of errors on Wikipedia, especially on this topic. That's one of the reasons I am an editor on Wikipedia, and routinely delete that crap. But there's only so much time, and I can't clean up every crap filled article on there. Just how it is.

As for radio, yeah it's the same. The difference is, you think one error filled medium is better than the other error filled medium. Well, that is your opinion. It's a false claim, but you have the right to be wrong on that. That said, I don't listen to radio at all. You just assumed that.

Further, I find it a complete joke, that you think that you know better than someone who actually suffers from Asthma, what is best for them. You really should reconsider your arrogance on that.

Lastly, you changed the topic. Localized air pollution, is different from "the entire planet is going to be ruined!".

We all know that localized pollution is a real issue that must be dealt with. That is completely different from lets ban everything planet wide, to save the Earth.

By all means, if you live in a city with a real pollution problem, pass the regulation on your city, that is needed to fix it.

That's a far cry from "let's ban all use of coal world wide!". You regulate your city. But when you go to the UN, and demand the rest of us follow what you did, no. I don't think so.