I'd like to report this bullshit: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg236673#msg236673
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness
And you called him out on it. That's not what the report feature is for.
Christ on a toothbrush, NE2, I believe you have somehow managed to set a new record for whiny and immature behavior.
I think this might earn a trophy.
Why is that comment within the realms of what is considered acceptable behavior though? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's political views in a productive way- it's quite another to question motive and/or resort to attacking other opinions.
QuoteSince environmentalism is just another word for selfishness
adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow that does nothing but make people who disagree with him not take him seriously and fosters a hateful environment for those that do agree with him. Everybody loses with this sort of comment, and it's the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.
Wouldn't reporting those sorts of comments that are unacceptable be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for?
Quote from: corco on August 01, 2013, 07:50:04 PM
Why is that comment within the realms of what is considered acceptable behavior though? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's political views in a productive way- it's quite another to question motive and/or resort to attacking other opinions.
QuoteSince environmentalism is just another word for selfishness
adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow. This is the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.
Wouldn't reporting those sorts of comments that are unacceptable be what the "Report to Moderator" button is for?
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 07:38:44 PM
Christ on a toothbrush, NE2, I believe you have somehow managed to set a new record for whiny and immature behavior.
I think this might earn a trophy.
I'm offended. I'm reporting this.
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
If I put in my sig "I am an environmentalist" would it qualify?
QuoteIt's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
It's not? Just because you don't mention people by name doesn't mean you aren't attacking people. It just fosters a toxic posting environment for no reason, and that sucks for all of us- it's an attack on each and every poster here.
It's like if I say "Since gun rights are just another word for selfishness" - that's going to piss off every pro-gun person here (cue pro-gun people chiming in to say "that didn't piss me off"), but the anti-gun people are going to be like "yeah! for sure!"- it's divisive and it's pointless. I didn't advance the debate any further, I just helped make us all hate each other a little bit more.
Quote from: corco on August 01, 2013, 07:50:04 PMQuoteSince environmentalism is just another word for selfishness . . .
. . . adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow that does nothing but make people who disagree with him not take him seriously and fosters a hateful environment for those that do agree with him. Everybody loses with this sort of comment, and it's the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.
My observation over the years has been that this particular individual will from time to time make a divisive comment of precisely the type quoted, row back and allow the furor to die down, and then come back to the same thread and post something else equally divisive which is constructed as a shot over the heads of the people who objected to the first comment, never as a direct reply to them, so that there are now two layers of insult (the original flamebait plus rejection of others' attempts to engage). A classic case in point, also evident in earlier pages in the Corridor H thread, is his attacks on California for serving as the birthplace for the environmental movement while benefiting from reclamation investments which he argues the Sierra Club and its fellow travelers would not permit now.
I am not sure what the moderators can realistically do to prevent a person from taking this approach to discussion, but even so it is disappointing to see anyone--let alone a lawyer working for a government agency--act with such cynicism. This forum should be about exchange of ideas, not attempting to grind axes while remaining just under the threshold for moderation.
oh, I agree that the original comment is a shitty one, but I think NE2's "fuck you" was more than sufficient a response.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 08:09:29 PM
Quote from: corco on August 01, 2013, 07:50:04 PMQuoteSince environmentalism is just another word for selfishness . . .
. . . adds absolutely nothing to any conversation- it's just a pointless blow that does nothing but make people who disagree with him not take him seriously and fosters a hateful environment for those that do agree with him. Everybody loses with this sort of comment, and it's the sort of thing that made MTR terrible and I'd hate to see it leak over here.
My observation over the years has been that this particular individual will from time to time make a divisive comment of precisely the type quoted, row back and allow the furor to die down, and then come back to the same thread and post something else equally divisive which is constructed as a shot over the heads of the people who objected to the first comment, never as a direct reply to them, so that there are now two layers of insult (the original flamebait plus rejection of others' attempts to engage). A classic case in point, also evident in earlier pages in the Corridor H thread, is his attacks on California for serving as the birthplace for the environmental movement while benefiting from reclamation investments which he argues the Sierra Club and its fellow travelers would not permit now.
I am not sure what the moderators can realistically do to prevent a person from taking this approach to discussion, but even so it is disappointing to see anyone--let alone a lawyer working for a government agency--act with such cynicism. This forum should be about exchange of ideas, not attempting to grind axes while remaining just under the threshold for moderation.
At the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:11:01 PMAt the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.
I have acted as a moderator myself, so I fully appreciate these difficulties, and I am not suggesting that a specific action be taken in this instance. The issue here is not that the opinion expressed is disagreeable
per se, but rather that it is an open expression of spite, and also fits into the poster's past one-two pattern of giving offense, going away, and returning to reoffend, which shows bad faith.
Returning to the original thread, I think Sherman Cahal had the best response; "fuck you" just drags down the tone of discussion.
I guess this is over SP Cook. When he was on misc.transport.road, his comments were on borderline insulting, racist or classist. It's one thing to disagree with another person's viewpoints, but when you drag in a person's race, belief, class or wealth - then the discussion isn't worth having.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 01, 2013, 08:51:32 PM
I guess this is over SP Cook. When he was on misc.transport.road, his comments were on borderline insulting, racist or classist. It's one thing to disagree with another person's viewpoints, but when you drag in a person's race, belief, class or wealth - then the discussion isn't worth having.
Sherman, I've forgiven you because you were very young when it happened, but I seem to remember you making a few borderline racist posts back in the eMpTyR days. They have nothing to do with who you are now, but don't ever forget your past and never allow yourself to go down that road again. Even those of us who don't "grow up" still try to make themselves a better person which is a form of growing up.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:11:01 PMAt the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.
I have acted as a moderator myself, so I fully appreciate these difficulties, and I am not suggesting that a specific action be taken in this instance. The issue here is not that the opinion expressed is disagreeable per se, but rather that it is an open expression of spite, and also fits into the poster's past one-two pattern of giving offense, going away, and returning to reoffend, which shows bad faith.
Returning to the original thread, I think Sherman Cahal had the best response; "fuck you" just drags down the tone of discussion.
Much agreed. We don't need to resort to vulgar insults when we have much more entertaining and verbally expressive insults.
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"
I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.
(see the devolution of that thread into pointless name-calling for an example of why that was a terrible comment that should have been moderated)
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 02, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"
I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.
I think that the word you are looking for is moderation! You take everything in moderation, as some people in this world do not. What gets me is some people get real bent out of shape over other people's opinions not only here, but elsewhere as well. When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was surprised to find that there are actually people around who are willing to die for strange causes that are not even on the normal political agenda that you hear each day.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 02, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"
I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.
I think that the word you are looking for is moderation! You take everything in moderation, as some people in this world do not. What gets me is some people get real bent out of shape over other people's opinions not only here, but elsewhere as well. When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was surprised to find that there are actually people around who are willing to die for strange causes that are not even on the normal political agenda that you hear each day.
Sorry if it's obvious, but what on earth are you talking about?
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 02, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"
I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.
There are contradictions on both sides, those who view mass transit and bicycles as nothing more than wastes of money and energy, and those who view cars and trucks as the death of the nation. No one seems to be interested in happy mediums anymore. It's one against the other.
Right, and back to the original comment there are two "valid" arguments for why environmentalists are selfish/are not selfish
Environmentalists are selfish because:
- In the views of those who disagree, they try to press their worldviews on others
- In the views of those who disagree, They don't want people to have access to places
- In the views of those who disagree, they are denying people the right to access cheap energy
- In the views of those who disagree, their regulations hinder job growth and make it impossible to do business
Environmentalists are not selfish because:
- In their view, they are preserving resources for future generations
- In their view, they are looking out for members of other species instead of putting humans first (which in their view would be pretty selfish for humans)
- In their view, they are exploring new ways to generate energy
- In their view, they are trying to employ people by creating an environmental protection sector in the economy
And neither side is completely right or completely wrong. Everything has tradeoffs and nothing is as black and white as that bullet list. I'm not seeing anybody try to actively prove or disprove any of those points- they're basically just repackaging those partial truths and proclaiming them as gospel. That's not productive and just leads to flame wars.
I have nothing more to add. Seems like everything's been pointed out that needed to. :bigass:
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 02, 2013, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 02, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
I prefer to see comments like this be called out for their idiocy. It's not attacking anyone in this forum, at least yet.
Well, not to mention that environmentalism is also an entire field of study, mind you a field I am very interested in. What if I were to say "no new construction needs to be done on any highway and anyone who disagrees can't accept the fact that roads are just a gateway to deaths?"
I don't believe it, but surely there are people in the world who do believe so.
I think that the word you are looking for is moderation! You take everything in moderation, as some people in this world do not. What gets me is some people get real bent out of shape over other people's opinions not only here, but elsewhere as well. When I first joined this forum a few years ago I was surprised to find that there are actually people around who are willing to die for strange causes that are not even on the normal political agenda that you hear each day.
Sorry if it's obvious, but what on earth are you talking about?
Simple, its when views of your own clash against each other you end up meeting in the middle which causes compromise. You say you are an environmentalist, but you say to be a true one you have to hate roads. On the other hand you love roads and like to see them built whenever. You have obviously met in the middle to make both work.
Basically you love the environment, but you are not all out protecting it as if you were you would not be in favor of new roads, therefore you like to be environmentalist, but you are taking issues to a moderate level.
Corco brought up an interesting point that you have to be one side or the other in today's world which causes things to be taken out of context. He made it good to express that being called selfish is not really that bad of a thing as we all have those tendencies and brought that out from an objective standpoint. To further exemplify my other point is that many of us here on this forum take things too personal when we do not need to.
NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us and judging by others' comments regarding your recent behavior, I have to ere in agreeing with them. Yea, some of my comments in our recent interactions have been somewhat of a nuisance, but I don't take that to the levels you are putting this through. We don't always agree with you. But this is too much. You have two options, bud. Get your act together or hit the road. Your choice. You decide.
To the rest of us, we can go on about this environment crap when we're not actually on the boards.
Would someone do the honors of locking this up so that it doesn't end up a potential shitstorm here, please and thanks?
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 03, 2013, 11:53:52 AM
NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us
Speak for yourself. SPUI's offbeat humor adds color to the board.
Yeah, I like SPUI. He's over the top sometimes but he has a bluntness I appreciate about him and he's almost always right.
Quote from: bugo on August 03, 2013, 01:09:39 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 03, 2013, 11:53:52 AM
NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us
Speak for yourself.
[sarcasm] Wow. Really? I can speak for myself? [end sarcasm]
Um...no.
😔
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 03, 2013, 11:53:52 AM
NE2, as much as I respect you as a fellow member of this board, you really are starting to annoy the hell out of us and judging by others' comments regarding your recent behavior, I have to ere in agreeing with them. Yea, some of my comments in our recent interactions have been somewhat of a nuisance, but I don't take that to the levels you are putting this through. We don't always agree with you. But this is too much. You have two options, bud. Get your act together or hit the road. Your choice. You decide.
To the rest of us, we can go on about this environment crap when we're not actually on the boards.
Would someone do the honors of locking this up so that it doesn't end up a potential shitstorm here, please and thanks?
Why would you specifically try to stir up trouble, then ask for a mod to lock this so that it doesn't stir up trouble? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2013, 02:47:47 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:11:01 PMAt the same time, the forum tries to be an open forum. Just because someone posts a disagreeable opinion doesn't mean they're not allowed to post it. There's a fine line, and after some of what's gone on here, I think we've decided in general to moderate less and watch more.
I have acted as a moderator myself, so I fully appreciate these difficulties, and I am not suggesting that a specific action be taken in this instance. The issue here is not that the opinion expressed is disagreeable per se, but rather that it is an open expression of spite, and also fits into the poster's past one-two pattern of giving offense, going away, and returning to reoffend, which shows bad faith.
Returning to the original thread, I think Sherman Cahal had the best response; "fuck you" just drags down the tone of discussion.
Much agreed. We don't need to resort to vulgar insults when we have much more entertaining and verbally expressive insults.
I believe the vulgar reply violates the posting guidelines as well (they prohibit "pointless cursing").
Quote from: corco on August 03, 2013, 01:15:23 PM
he's almost always right.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Regarding the environment, we all respect the environment. We have to. It doesn't make sense for us not to. We all have to breathe the air and drink the water. We all want to see them preserved for us and for future generations.
But some of us aren't Chicken Littles when it comes to global warming, or coal mining, or petroleum extraction, or so many other causes that have been taken up by the political left in this country.
When they come up with an electric car that is profitable to sell and cost-effective to buy, that can be driven 400 miles at 75 mph and the refueled at a cost of $50 or less in fewer than 5 minutes, then get back to me.
I believe that the resources of the earth were put here for people to use. People were not put on the earth to preserve it. What purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:49:22 PM
When they come up with an electric car that is profitable to sell and cost-effective to buy, that can be driven 400 miles at 75 mph and the refueled at a cost of $50 or less in fewer than 5 minutes, then get back to me.
http://www.teslamotors.com/ These guys are the closest you can get.
HB: fuck you.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:49:22 PMWhat purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?
this strikes me as incredibly arrogant. who says the Earth has a purpose? and certainly who says that the purpose begins and ends with humans?
or, as NE2 said... well, you know what he said.
QuoteRegarding the environment, we all respect the environment. We have to. It doesn't make sense for us not to. We all have to breathe the air and drink the water. We all want to see them preserved for us and for future generations.
But some of us aren't Chicken Littles when it comes to global warming, or coal mining, or petroleum extraction, or so many other causes that have been taken up by the political left in this country.
When they come up with an electric car that is profitable to sell and cost-effective to buy, that can be driven 400 miles at 75 mph and the refueled at a cost of $50 or less in fewer than 5 minutes, then get back to me.
I believe that the resources of the earth were put here for people to use. People were not put on the earth to preserve it. What purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?
And while I disagree with it, that's a respectable way to express your opinion. There's a big difference between saying what you just said and saying "environmentalists are selfish." What you just did was express your views on why environmentalism is an incorrect idea- you didn't question the motives of people who subscribe to environmentalism.
Expressing your opinion = fine. Disagreeing with others = fine. Assuming that people who disagree with you are selfish/evil/bad people = not fine. Very few of us on any side of any spectrum want to see the world turn into chaos- nearly everyone believes what they believe because they think it will make the world a better place. Questioning that isn't productive and just further divides us.
Quote from: corco on August 03, 2013, 09:34:57 PM
nearly everyone believes what they believe because they think it will make the world a better place.
Some people just have broken definitions of 'the world' (meaning their little privileged bubble) or 'better'.
Quote from: corco on August 03, 2013, 09:34:57 PM
Expressing your opinion = fine. Disagreeing with others = fine. Assuming that people who disagree with you are selfish/evil/bad people = not fine. Very few of us on any side of any spectrum want to see the world turn into chaos- nearly everyone believes what they believe because they think it will make the world a better place. Questioning that isn't productive and just further divides us.
Agreed. A legal aphorism roughly goes as follows: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Resorting to a gratuitous insult suggests a meaningless and unproductive "pounding of the table" that, if anything, accomplishes nothing but diminishing the poster's credibility.
Regarding NE2, in regard to road-related topics, he does an unparallelled job of "pounding the facts" through his links, and as corco observes, he is usually right because he does a magnificent job of backing it up.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2013, 05:27:27 PM
I believe the vulgar reply violates the posting guidelines as well (they prohibit "pointless cursing").
Agreed. Pointless cursing is tantamount to "pounding the table" and is a waste of space.
Quote from: NE2 on August 03, 2013, 09:56:16 PM
Some people just have broken definitions of 'the world' (meaning their little privileged bubble) or 'better'.
HB could either point out that you are just "pounding the table" or, in the alternative, just as easily hurl that accusation at you ............. which would accomplish absolutely nothing.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 03, 2013, 09:15:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:49:22 PMWhat purpose does the earth serve if there are no people on it?
this strikes me as incredibly arrogant. who says the Earth has a purpose? and certainly who says that the purpose begins and ends with humans?
That's a pretty standard belief if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it. I don't believe that all life is equal. Man = dog = fish = snail = tree = algae=paramecium. What a load of crap. I fully expect some "save the vegetables" equivalent of PETA to come out one of these days and protest the eating of plants as being cruel to them. If we can't eat meat and we can't eat fruits or vegetables, I guess we'll just starve.
PETA is just another bullshit religious group. God never existed and animals in general have no more rights than fetuses. We're all going to die and go nowhere mentally. Conservatives are literally dying off.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 11:54:33 PM
if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it.
The Biblical view? Doesn't responsible stewardship come along with the gift of dominion?
Quote from: Grzrd on August 04, 2013, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 11:54:33 PM
if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it.
The Biblical view? Doesn't responsible stewardship come along with the gift of dominion?
No one is saying that it doesn't.
Grzrd does raise a good point about the duty of responsible stewardship, but it is also true that environmental protection serves our rational self-interest. The alternative is not even being able to breathe the air, as is now the case in Beijing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/sunday-review/life-in-a-toxic-country.html?_r=0
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 04, 2013, 12:29:02 AM
it is also true that environmental protection serves our rational self-interest. The alternative is not even being able to breathe the air, as is now the case in Beijing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/sunday-review/life-in-a-toxic-country.html?_r=0
Agreed. An interesting paradox to me is that David Brower, who accomplished remarkably good environmental work within the United States political system, has the following quote (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html) attributed to him:
Quote
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
It looks like the "Chinese Socialist Experiment" is not working out so well in environmental terms. I much prefer the rough-and-tumble of American discourse which, although messy and often contentious, tends to result in a good long-term result. Even Richard Nixon (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/photos/six-good-things-richard-nixon-did-for-the-environment/clean-air-act) (gasp) had an essential role in the passage of the Clean Air Act.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 12:23:59 AM
No one is saying that it doesn't.
Thanks for the clarification. I think we can both agree that the question now is what constitutes "responsible stewardship"?
China is about as socialist as Nazi Germany. (And if you think the Nazis were actual socialists, you're too dumb to OH SHIT GODWIN)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 03, 2013, 10:58:06 PM
"pounding the table" ... is a waste of space.
Quote from: NE2 on August 04, 2013, 01:11:59 AM
China is about as socialist as Nazi Germany. (And if you think the Nazis were actual socialists, you're too dumb to OH SHIT GODWIN)
History
does repeat itself and you predictably play to form. Nikita Khruschchev would be proud of you.
I would welcome a rational discussion. To begin, give me your precise definition of the current Chinese political system.
Next, although the table-pounding is distracting, I discern that you agree with Brower re "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." In other words, is your murky point (if any) that the Chinese are not socialist enough?
Also, it appears you are indirectly invoking Godwin's law. Really? :colorful: 4 u.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 11:54:33 PM
hat's a pretty standard belief if you subscribe to the Biblical view, as I do, that God gave man dominion over the earth and everything on it.
boy would I love to see the primary source on that one.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 04, 2013, 01:31:45 AM
I would welcome a rational discussion.
I wouldn't. I'm content with calling you a Nazi.
^ Thanks!!!! I just won 50 bucks :clap:
Udasurebet!
Dirty capitalist pig. (How much do you win for me saying that?)
Quote from: NE2 on August 04, 2013, 02:21:12 AM
Dirty capitalist pig. (How much do you win for me saying that?)
Nothing. The bet was whether or not you would
post another gratuitous insult. Easy money.
Quote from: NE2 on August 04, 2013, 01:11:59 AM
China is about as socialist as Nazi Germany.
If you want to quibble about countries, this 1996 article from the Florida State University website (http://rinr.fsu.edu/summer96/features/nightmare.html) addresses the environmental record of the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe:
Quote
Eleven European nations are paying a terrible price for their long years under the communist yoke. Leading a world effort to help undo the damage is Florida State University ....
As the world now knows, Poland is hardly alone in its environmental misery. Since the collapse of communism and Soviet dominance of the region in 1989, conditions in Poland's sister states-principally Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria-still shock reporters and scientists who visit the region for the first time. From the Rhine Basin flanking East Germany to the northern shores of the Black Sea, scientists have now documented a swath of environmental carnage that holds 100 million central and eastern Europeans in its depressing grip.
"What we're up against here are problems of, in some cases, unprecedented scale," says Dr. Roy Herndon, whose Florida State institute Kuperberg works for. "Considerable progress is being made to address these problems, but frankly, some of these won't be solved in our lifetimes, if ever."
Aaaaaand we're done here. Offsetting penalties. Back to roads.