US town bans bottled water

Jan 02, 2013
A bottle of Dasani water sits on the floor of a recycling facility in San Francisco, California, on March 15, 2011. A law passed by a town in Massachusetts goes into effect with the New Year, making single-serving bottles of water illegal.

Water, water everywhere—just not in plastic bottles, says a town in the US state of Massachusetts.

A law passed by the town of Concord went into effect with the New Year, making single-serving bottles of water illegal.

The ban is intended to encourage use of and curb the worldwide problem of .

It only applies to "non-sparkling, unflavored drinking water." Coke or other are exempt.

Jean Hill, an 84-year-old activist, thought up the ban, arguing that bottles fill garbage dumps, while consumers are lured into drinking water they could obtain for a tiny fraction of the cost at their own sink.

"The bottled water companies are draining our aquifers and selling it back to us. I'm going to work until I drop on this," Hill told The New York Times in 2010.

First time offenders get a warning. Anyone caught selling the banned bottles a second time will be fined $25, and $50 thereafter.

Explore further: Bacteria ate some toxins, but worst remain, according to Gulf oil spill researcher

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Canada to ban BPA baby bottles

Apr 18, 2008

Canada became the first country to declare the widely used chemical bisphenol A unsuitable for use in baby bottles and set a ban mechanism in motion Friday.

How Much Energy Goes Into Making a Bottle of Water?

Mar 17, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Most people who buy bottled water have access to clean drinking water virtually for free (in the US, tap water costs less than a penny per gallon, on average). Nevertheless, the consumption ...

Recommended for you

Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

4 hours ago

The selective logging of trees in otherwise intact tropical forests can take a serious toll on the number of animal species living there. Mammals and amphibians are particularly sensitive to the effects of ...

User comments : 239

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
3.2 / 5 (18) Jan 02, 2013
Hail Concord!

Let the beverage companies drown in their own reconstituted tap water.

Bottled water is the stupidest, most redundant product ever conceived of. My hat is off to Jean Hill, for calling attention to a dangerous and wasteful scam foisted upon us by the corporocrat class.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (25) Jan 02, 2013
Maybe new massachussits never heard of recycling?
bredmond
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2013
You know, in china, many restaurants and toilets dont have toilet paper. they expect everybody to bring their own. everybody expects to have to bring their own toilet paper wherever they go. and also, most public toilets are squat toilets.
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2013
Maybe new massachussits never heard of recycling?


Ottotard:

Recycling plastic costs money for collecting, cleaning, grinding, and remelting the plastic.

Plastic with impurities can't be used and has to be discard.

The lid is a different type of plastic than the bottle itself, and shouldn't be melted back in the same batch for certain types of plastic products, so you'd have to pay somebody to take off the lid and the ring of each bottle by hand...

Plastic that has been recycled can't be used again for food grade products.

I think selling it in the form of polyester clothing is the most profitable form of recycling for PET, but I'm not entirely sure.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (15) Jan 02, 2013
Recycling plastic costs money for collecting

Nope. Because you bring that stuff back to the store yourself (to get your deposit back). Works like a charm over here.

Cleaning isn't needed because the melting process is at high enough temperatures to sterilize the plastic and the molten plastic is also used in industrial products - not new bottles. Being handed these used bottles as raw resources basically for free is vastly cheaper to the industry using them than making their plastic from scratch (oil prices being what they are).

Everybody wins.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (32) Jan 02, 2013
Maybe new massachussits never heard of recycling?


Nor apparently have they heard of freedom of choice, and that they're in America.

This is typical of the "liberal progressive" though,... these imbeciles will ban, regulate, and tax, until they've solved every little social imperfection that pops into their vacuous "do-gooder" mush-heads.

They are too stupid to understand that if you're going to ban 'this', then you must ban or regulate EVERY innumerable like behavior that may lead to some social ill, .... because why is this "issue" more important than other things for which you can remove yet another freedom? There is no rational basis for one thing taking precedence over another equally valid social problem,.. and thus no end to the loss of freedom.

They don't even realize that the only reason they "discovered" these problem unresolved, is because previous generations preserved freedom of choice, not that the problem wasn't obvious.
Lurker2358
3.1 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2013
They are too stupid to understand that if you're going to ban 'this', then you must ban or regulate EVERY innumerable like behavior that may lead to some social ill, .... because why is this "issue" more important than other things for which you can remove yet another freedom? There is no rational basis for one thing taking precedence over another equally valid social problem,.. and thus no end to the loss of freedom.


So basically, you're saying that since you can't solve every problem at once, you may as well not try to solve any of them...

Laws exist to prevent people from harming themselves and others. Destroying the environment harms others. Therefore there should be laws against it, and not just in general, but specifically.

The reason some laws take precedence is because the sane people try to pass good laws where possible, because the insane people can't be convinced to do all good things simultaneously, nor ban all bad things simultaneously.
Lurker2358
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2013
Cleaning isn't needed because the melting process is at high enough temperatures to sterilize the plastic and the molten plastic is also used in industrial products - not new bottles.


I worked QA in a plastic factory. You don't even know what I was referring to, it would seem. You can't just throw shit in a grinder and melt it, because dirt, metals, foreign pigments, and other types of plastic screw up the process. If a speck of dirt, metal, or other type of plastic becomes an inclusion in a bottle it can weaken it, cause it to leak, or cause the lid not to seal.

Being handed these used bottles as raw resources basically for free is vastly cheaper to the industry using them than making their plastic from scratch (oil prices being what they are).

Everybody wins.


I never said it was useless. You just miss the point.

We shouldn't be using and discarding hundreds of bottles per person per year anyway, recycling is irrelevant.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2013
If a speck of dirt, metal, or other type of plastic becomes an inclusion in a bottle it can weaken it, cause it to leak, or cause the lid not to seal.

Plastic bottles are collected by the stores. There's no metal in these bins (and even if there were: metal is ridiculously easy to separate out)
And as I said: The bottles you bring back are NOT recycled into new bottles. Their made into park benches, filler for roads, get shredded into insulation mats, used as car parts and whatnot. Small impurities are completely irrelevant for these uses.

There's no real difference in eco-friendlyness between glass and plastic. And since glass is less convenient for the consumer the choice for plastic bottles is sort of obvious.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (22) Jan 02, 2013
They are too stupid to understand that if you're going to ban 'this', then you must ban or regulate EVERY innumerable like behavior that may lead to some social ill, .... because why is this "issue" more important than other things for which you can remove yet another freedom? There is no rational basis for one thing taking precedence over another equally valid social problem,.. and thus no end to the loss of freedom.
So basically, you're saying that since you can't solve every problem at once, you may as well not try to solve any of them...


Nope, never said that, nor does my point have to do with problems of simultaneity.

Recycled plastic ("regrind") is readily used in the plastic industry,... the problems that you note have already been resolved,.... and it's not necessary that "the stores" collect the bottles, as the vast majority of such bottles are PET plastic and easily identifiable.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (21) Jan 02, 2013
Conspicuous consumption is disgusting. Good for you Concord!
gwrede
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
In my home town recycling plastic bottles is 30-year old news.

But we recycle them whole. It is not unusual to see stacks of 1.5 litre Coke bottles in the store, with brand new labels, but the bottle itself looking like it's been to Iraq and back. On the inside they are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected before every use. And robots see to it that no defective bottles, or ones containing any kind of residue or objects get recycled.

Works like a charm. You simply don't find empty bottles anywhere outdoors. Grocery stores pay you 15 cents per bottle. (And yes, we recycle all sizes.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2013
Over here (germany) the empty bottles are fed into shredders/compactors at the stores. You pay a deposit of 25cents per bottle when you buy it and you get that back when you bring the bottle in and feed it into the machine.

Latest statistics show that about 70% of all bottles bought in stores are returned and 99% of that is recycled (as opposed to 80% return rates for glass but glass recycling is more tricky because there you have more additional non-glass 'junk', like PET labels or screw caps made of various materials. Hence the effective recycling rate is a bit lower).

The reason only 70% of plastic bottles are recycled is that there is a (stupid) exception where you don't need to pay the deposit for bottled fruit juice. (Which has led some manufacturers of mineral water to add tiny amounts of fruit juice to their product to make them appear cheaper at stores)
Sharpside
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2013
I guess water in glass bottles is still sold then?

I would not like to drink fluoridated tapwater as this is definately the case in some areas.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (27) Jan 03, 2013
Thats an excellent system. We have separate containers in our trash system, one for aluminum and plastic bottles to be recycled. Simple.

Anyone who thinks it is acceptable for the government, in a freee society, to tell you what you can and can't buy is a dunderhead. As to the reactionary and misinformed 'opinion' that bottle water is redundant or a scam,... it is a legitamate product that serves rational purposes in the market, and employees people. Personally, I find I drink much more water than if I had to rely on tap water,.. more water this increases health which decreases health care costs.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (24) Jan 03, 2013
So basically, you're saying that since you can't solve every problem at once, you may as well not try to solve any of them...


As I said it has nothing to do with the impracticality of "fixing" everything "at once". If it doesn't make sense to solve all such problems via limiting basic freedoms in a free society, then it does not make sense to solve any of them in that fashion.

For example, why not limit the speed of cars to <30 mph? The amount of fuel and number of lives saved would be enormous. Or, why not ban all plastics , or ban smoking as we know it causes cancer, or why not regulate the sugar intact of children as child obesity is a problem, or mandate that everyone must eat vegetables and exercise or face a penalty, again the savings in lives and expense to the health care system would be enormous if the gov could control human behavior. Gov controlled thermostats, mandate approval for driving long distances, gov rationed sweets, gov rationed electricity,.....
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (24) Jan 03, 2013
,... impose mandatory governmental approval for defending oneself,... or here's one, impose restrictions on the number of children one can have as a function of income,.... ban luxury items and such behavior as long as poverty exists some where in the world,.. ban cars with engines larger than 2L,.... create special status for defined victim groups,.... impose class warfare,... enforce equal amounts of liberalism as conservatism on the air waves,... ban profit above a government defined limit,... government ban on the notion of a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility,... tax or ban sarcasm ,..... mandatory gov sponsored parenting school and gov inspections of households,....

It's not about whether any one of these reactionary measures could in principal solve a problem,.... it's about maintaining a society free citizens would actually want to live in.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2013
Anyone who thinks it is acceptable for the government, in a freee society, to tell you what you can and can't buy is a dunderhead.

For trivial matters...maybe.

But we're dealing with complex matters that the average Joe just doesn't have the brainpower to comprehend.
Is glass better for the environment? Or plastic? What does the average Joe know about the cumulative effect of all average Joes embarking on any one course of action - even though it may seem desirable to the individual?

Face it: on matters beyond the exceedingly trivial with immediate feedback the average Joes ARE dunderheads. And there I think it's perfectly reasonable for government to say: We've let experts look into this - and based on their INFORMED opinion it is a good idea to not let people do X - even though it may seem like a superficially cool thing to do. (E.g. drive at any speed you want, littere wherever you want, buy plutonium, buy addictive drugs, buy guns, ... )
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (23) Jan 03, 2013
drive at any speed you want, littere wherever you want, buy plutonium


Please don't conflate rule of law with social engineering, for which I've given several examples that were NOT trivial at all, and more "important" as a problem than a proliferation of plastic bottles. Your invention of new (wrong) examples shows you admit my core point.

Indeed, "social progressivism" proposes to use the scientific method in implementing social engineering. It is not that the old dictators and communists used the wrong methods,.. its that they attempted to restrict freedoms to achieve idealistic utopian fantasy, at all.

The liberal progressives and socialists are even worse, because it is intrinsic in free societies that there is such defects,... endless reasons to limit freedom all statistically justified and equally or more so a "problem".
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
I do think that regulation is a way to get social engineering done. Look at energy: Every new energy form was heavily subsidized in the beginning to make a switchover. Coal, oil, nuclear, and now alternative energies. Is that wrong? Of course not. Because at each of the times there were very sensible reasons for making a switchover.

With our behaviour regarding the environment it is the same. If we behave in a way that will cost us a lot more (in life quality) down the line - and we won't change on our own - then it's up to the government to give us a nudge.

And for that they have two ways. Incentives or taxes. incentives cost money. And since he government doesn't have any spare cash lying around that method is currently not workeable.

Freedom isn't an ideal unto itself. The ideal is that our lives get better. If you want freedom: go live in the jungle.
ricarguy
2.5 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
I think it's perfectly reasonable for government to say: We've let experts look into this - and based on their INFORMED opinion it is a good idea to not let people do X
-antialias...
In the last century alone about 150 million people were killed (murder, starvation, etc.) by their own governments. In every single instance it was because the government "experts" were "INFORMED".
Always amazes me how you people on the left love the idea of evolution, yet when it comes to human society you always advocate suppressing freedom for more external control by some "informed" central authority and expect that to work better. The thought process is both naive and arrogant.
ricarguy
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
I do think that regulation is a way to get social engineering done...
...[if] we won't change on our own - then it's up to the government to give us a nudge.


You have clearly contradicted yourself.
ricarguy
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2013
Back to the original topic. I personally always thought buying a bottle of water in most cases was dumb since perfectly potable water is usually free and abundant in public places. But if people want it and they can make money off of it more power to 'em. This ban is at best misguided. All it will do is sell more Coke out of the vending machine or convenience store and society over all will be worse off by having that particular choice (water) eliminated. Once again the feel-good meddlers FAIL.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
In the last century alone about 150 million people were killed (murder, starvation, etc.) by their own governments.

So?

I do think that regulation is a way to get social engineering done... ...[if] we won't change on our own - then it's up to the government to give us a nudge.
You have clearly contradicted yourself.

Erm. No.

I said that we need regulations when we're incapable to regulate ourselves. Masses of humans are incapable of regulating themselves on anything in which the majority isn't on an expert level (i.e. we are incapable of autonomous societal regulation for anything much beyond "food now", "sex now", "safety now")

So there's a very clear role for governmental regulation (basically for anything that wont impact us "now").
It can do this by:

1) Educating the people to the point where they can regulate themselves

2) Nudging the people where they are resistant to being educated (with incentives or disincentives)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2013
And preferrably doing 2) to a point where it turns into 1)

Case in point: spearating your trash and returning glass and plastic bottles.
It seemed like a hassle at first but nowadays people do it as a matter of course - because they have seen that the amount of trash lying about has drastically decreased as a result over the years. NOT returning your bottles and putting them in the trash now seems awkward.
This increased quality of life that would never have been achieved by just telling people "be good to the environment" (as can be seen in several nearby countries. Most prominetly Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece - which are basically huge dumps by now)
CrooklynBoy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2013
Everybody wants to rule the world.
RitchieGuy01
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2013
ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U. It is U who knows everything and nobody else knows as much as U do. They all just pretend to know just to impress U. I know that you laugh at everyone else that posts in your physorg. YES. . .this IS your physorg and nobody has the right to post their imbecillic junk without YOUR aproval. U hve been avoiding me lately, Ghost. Have U found another man to suuck on? When are we gonna get together again at our favorite motel darling. Remember all those nites we spent together in bed making love? It was pure heaven. I have missed you so much. I see that you're going after other men and looking for some pussytard. Why are you looking for pussy, darling? U KNOW you only love to suckee on me. I thought we were suppose ta get married. Those other men don't deserve you the way I do. I'll have to leave this message everywhere I find U. U have my number. . .please call me, my precious juicy cockman.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
Recycling plastic costs money for collecting, cleaning, grinding, and remelting the plastic
Lurkers magnificent brain is far too pristine to learn anything new. Up in MI you pay the 10 cent deposit up front and return to any supermarket for crushing and refund. Bums keep the streets bottle-free.
ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U.
Hey there pussytard. You sound a little upset-

-
Hey you see the article on your sweet sorghum that you grew before you found out that nobody ferments the stuff? haha
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2013
Water bottles do have a MA recycling charge. Consumers pay the 5 or 10 cents per can/bottle to the state of MA, but few bother to return the bottles/cans to the store machines for a refund giving the state more money.
BTW, Concord banned the sale of any food product that is not wrapped. Krispy Kreme used to be sold in Concord gas stations where the customer could open a cabinet and select the product.
Concord is just another watermelon, NIMBY paradise.
Hard to imagine any of their ancestors had the courage to oppose British rule.
Bums keep the streets bottle-free.

Bums are banned in Concord, MA.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 03, 2013
but few bother to return the bottles/cans to the store machines for a refund giving the state more money.
You sure ryggy? Maybe you should check out the nearest walmart. Lots of people return, by the cartload.
Bums are banned in Concord, MA.
So what convinces the people they need to work, if not by example?
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2013
If it doesn't make sense to solve all such problems via limiting basic freedoms in a free society, then it does not make sense to solve any of them in that fashion.


Non-sequitur.

Some problems of liberty in a society are worth solving because the overall payoff is greater than the benefit of the liberty, and others simply aren't. For example, the freedom to sell heroin over the counter without a prescription gives you much more trouble than it's worth if you could.

For example, why not limit the speed of cars to <30 mph? The amount of fuel and number of lives saved would be enormous.


Because it would increase costs elsewhere, such as the man-hours lost when people have to sit in traffic, all of which would indirectly lead to more loss than the traffic accidents you're trying to solve.

A part of liberty is the freedom to change the environment you live in. Without that, there is no liberty because you're forbidden to do anything to the problems you face.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2013
That said, banning water bottles is a stupid idea.

The whole point of the product is that you don't have to carry your own bottle everywhere and fill it from random un-hygienic sources such as public toilets when you run out. You can buy a cold clean bottle of water when you need it.

I wonder if the ban also applies to 1-2 gallon water bottles that are handy for picknicks etc.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2013
But we recycle them whole. It is not unusual to see stacks of 1.5 litre Coke bottles in the store, with brand new labels, but the bottle itself looking like it's been to Iraq and back. On the inside they are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected before every use.


The reason why most everyone has given up on re-usable PET bottles is the fact that they use 20 times more material because they have to be made durable, yet you can only use them 30-40 times because of UV damage, damage from the cleaning process, and the fact that they shrink slightly every time you wash them in hot water.

In theory they use about half as much plastic per volume of drinks sold, but the recycling and cleaning of reusable PET bottles uses more energy and uses harsh chemicals that aren't very good for the environment. For example, a truck can carry hundreds of times more shredded bottles because they take hardly any space.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (21) Jan 03, 2013
why not limit the speed of cars to <30 mph? The amount of fuel and number of lives saved would be enormous.
Because it would increase costs elsewhere, such as the man-hours lost when people have to sit in traffic


The whole point here is that a "social progressive" gov acts counter to such inconveniences of its populace, therefore it would NOT arrive at the conclusion you just invented.

That you disagree with the water ban shows that you are questioning the supposed superiors and are thus being inconsistent.

Some problems of liberty in a society are worth solving because the overall payoff is greater than the benefit of the liberty


I'm speaking here about 'social engineering' aspects of daily life (banning large sodas, water bottles). This experiment has been done before which as mentioned above has lead to the largest mass deaths in human history. Historically the greater payoff is to leave personal liberty as intact as possible.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2013
"n 2011, unclaimed (abandoned) deposits amounted to approximately $104 million in New York, $33.5 million in Massachusetts and $17.8 million in Michigan.3"
http://www.bottle...imed.htm
ricarguy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
Mr. Antialias,
As a general rule, should people control the actions of government or should the government have control over the people?
Both can be corrupted. But far more problems, both in modern and ancient times can be attributed to bad government than the by the citizenry at large.
You seem to believe that people, in general, are not capable of ruling over themselves. I believe that people acting in their own self-interest and at their local community level (although always imperfect) are better off ruling over themselves. I believe that the more centralized, and therefore removed, decisions are made, the worse things will be.
Example: I can think that the banning of bottled water in a town is dumb, but if I live in the next town or country over, not so much my problem. If an entire country does it, it's a little harder to avoid.

One final comment. If a country decides to, say, ban Jews under penalty of death, you would answer "So?" ? Really?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2013
As a general rule, should people control the actions of government or should the government have control over the people?

General rules are dumb. Use that which works best depending on the context you find yourself in.
Both can be corrupted.

Agreed
But far more problems, both in modern and ancient times can be attributed to bad government than the by the citizenry at large.

If you concentrate power then the misuse/abuse of that power causes disproportinal hardship. This goes for putting all power into the hands of a dictator - but equally well for allowing individuals to own guns.

You seem to believe that people, in general, are not capable of ruling over themselves.

Individually - they can. As a group - not so much. There have been attempts to educate people to the point that a ruling class wasn't needed. The entire eastern bloc education system was geared towards that goal with extensive emphasis on creating a 'political person'
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (22) Jan 03, 2013
It is not hard to see that AntiAlias's "experts in government" can't even balance budgets in a country like the USA, and never study's stats that demonstrate their own cataclysmic failures. World gov promises even more abject incompetence and has demonstrated it as well.

Perhaps he does not realize that the Nazis came to power in impatient response to the unwillingness of the old democratic socialists to implement their own idealism the only way possible, ultimately, by force and coercion.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2013
What most probably don't know about Concord, Carlisle, Acton, Lexington, and many other MA towns is their zoning laws have made it impossible for most people to afford to live there.
MA passed a law in an attempt to force these towns to allow the construction of 'affordable' housing.
I am all for supporting the rights of property owners, but these MA 'liberals' are most hypocritical.
I guess they must assuage their guilt of living so well and keeping out the 'rif raf' by voting for ultra-liberals.
The classic case was the opposition by Kennedys, Cronkite, Chomsky, etc. opposition of windmills off Cape Cod.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
One final comment. If a country decides to, say, ban Jews under penalty of death, you would answer "So?" ?

No, because as I noted above: This is one of the things that is not up to the government - just like the government has no right to interfere with someone's sex life for example - unless that comes in conflict with things that are its responsibility (e.g. protection of minors or its citizenry in general)

Human rights (e.g. life, dignity, freedom from oppression, torture, etc. ) are not things the government should be able to act against (or make laws against).
Government is there to organize and counteract detrimental tendencies (e.g. pollution, energy waste, crime, etc. ) which may not seem like immediate concerns but can hit back hard down the road if left unchecked.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
It is not hard to see that AntiAlias's "experts in government" can't even balance budgets in a country like the USA

Please note that I never said experts IN government. I truly believe that governements currently are comprised of remarkeably few experts but largely of bought cronies the world over.

Perhaps he does not realize that the Nazis came to power in impatient response to the unwillingness of the old democratic socialists

The Nazis cheated themselves to power on less than a third of the votes and with the help of all the big capitalists in the country (who got a lot richer during their reign and mostly came out of WWII unscathed with fat Swiss bank accounts)
If you look up Smedley Butler and the Business plot you'll notice that the US was VERY close to having the same fate that Nazi germany did and only avoided it by the chance act of one man.
http://en.wikiped...ess_Plot
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
all the big capitalists

They were not capitalists.
True capitalists do not depend upon the govt to control their competitors.
In the US, large meat packers supported the creation of the FDA to create regulations that forced competitors out of business. They were called 'progressives'.
Anti, are claiming the socialists prior to the NAZIs didn't control business and that the NAZIs in turn did not control business in the same way, or even worse?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
True capitalists do not depend upon the govt to control their competitors.

Then show me a true capitalist. ALL capitalist fight for tax breaks. ALL capitalists lobby for regulationst that will make it harder for competitors to enter the market. A monopoly is a capitalist's wet dream. They're in it for the money - not the ideology.

If they can get in a position where a government (whether it call itself 'socialist' or not) will shove endless, unlimited contracts their way show me the capitalist that will NOT want than (or actively work against such a setup).

What do you think the big companies in the US are? Defense contractors. They live off of your tax money on no-bid contracts. Is that capitalism?
Lobby groups of ALL the major companies are present in Washington making sure tax laws and regulations go their way. Is that capitalism?

No way. This 'ideal capitalism' you're dreaming of exists nowhere in the world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2013
"n 2011, unclaimed (abandoned) deposits amounted to approximately $104 million in New York, $33.5 million in Massachusetts and $17.8 million in Michigan.3"
So obviously the solution is to lift the ban on scavengers and institute recycling. Perhaps they can import them from detroit as there are plenty of them there.

Scavengers are an integral part of the food chain.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 03, 2013
Anti, are claiming the socialists prior to the NAZIs didn't control business and that the NAZIs in turn did not control business in the same way, or even worse?


Of course they did, but went as far as democratic socialism could go,... and passed the baton to the Nazis to bring their idealism of a 'perfect society' to its natural conclusion. Both the old socialists and Nazis were anti-liberal (those who wish to preserve liberty,.. in modern USA this is the conservatives and libertarians).

No way. This 'ideal capitalism' you're dreaming of exists nowhere in the world.


Close enough that it created the greatest of economies and progress in human history. What absolutely has never existed is the utopian perfect society as designed by the far left,.. in fact quite the opposite usually results.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
The reason why most everyone has given up on re-usable PET bottles is the fact that they use 20 times more material because they have to be made durable, yet you can only use them 30-40 times because of UV damage, damage from the cleaning process, and the fact that they shrink slightly every time you wash them in hot water.

And here Eikka hits upon the single most compelling reason for banning plastic-encased water(or, for that matter, any beverage or consumable): plastic is goddam POISON.

And at every step of the way, emits harmful organic compounds into drink, food, cosmetics, water, air and any other parts of the environment with which it comes in contact.

This without making any reference to the physical pollution refuse plastics create. South/North Pacific garbage gyres, anyone?

All of this noise about freedom and market forces is just more of the same old apologetics from those who stand to lose a few bucks on their investments.

Piss off. I want a cleaner world.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013

No way. This 'ideal capitalism' you're dreaming of exists nowhere in the world.


AA--

Couldn't have said it any better.

ryggsuckin', et al, flail their ideology about like it's the fundamental matter of the Universe, when it is only that --mental.

All the LibertaRandite fantasizing in the world won't
change the fact that "Freimarket" Capitalism obeys no rules or master besides cold, hard GREED.

Therefore, the ENDS justify ANY MEANS. And this is what makes their proclamations of the great and positive good of FMC so laughable and contemptible, both at the same time.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (21) Jan 03, 2013
All the LibertaRandite fantasizing in the world won't change the fact that "Freimarket" Capitalism obeys no rules or master besides cold, hard GREED.


Your interpretation is just an emotional and subjective one, expected from a bed-wetting liberal.

Every person has an intrinsic self preservation mechanism which has evolved as a component of their nature. Capitalism is simply a manifestation of this nature of egoism, competition, and freedom. It is a beautiful mechanism for good, and has worked for millions of years. But I'll let the man you voted for sum it up,.....

""I believe that the free market is one of the greatest forces for progress in human history, and that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not the government" - B. Obama

[...giggle...]
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2013
Of course, not. Doing so will pollute your precious bodily fluids.

So you elect to drink brominated bottled water.

"I would not like to drink fluoridated tapwater as this is definately the case in some areas." - DullBoy
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2013
All the LibertaRandite fantasizing in the world won't change the fact that "Freimarket" Capitalism obeys no rules or master besides cold, hard GREED.


Your interpretation is just an emotional and subjective one, expected from a bed-wetting liberal.



Again, nonoUN me demonstrates the phenomena of Projection, and ever so aptly illustrates exacly the point I was making about the fantasy-basis of the LibertaRandite claims of how FMC operates in the actual world, outside the diseased headspace of its proponents.

Good job, nonoUNme.
lona2244
4.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2013
You also have to look at the bigger picture. Bottle water hurts us in more ways than just plastic pollution. It takes tons of energy to pump the water, make the bottles, bottle the water, and then transport it around the country. If you filled up a bottle 1/3 of the way with oil, thats how much it takes to ship it. On top of that, most of the bottled water companies use tap water and if its not tap water, then they get it from pumping millions of gallons of water out of natural streams and other bodies of water which has effected the humans, plants, and animals in many communities. Also it takes 3 oz of crude oil to produce just one bottle of water. If you don't believe me or you disagree then you should watch the documentary, Flow. It will probably change your mind.
barakn
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2013
The whole point of the product is that you don't have to carry your own bottle everywhere and fill it from random un-hygienic sources such as public toilets when you run out. -Eikka
Rather than toilets, use sinks or drinking fountains - they're much cleaner.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2013
Impossible.

"Bottled water is the stupidest, most redundant product ever conceived of." - Caliban

Consumers always make perfect choices.

It is the fundamental assumption of Economics.
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
Is that why you are so ignorant of the state? You have been banned?

"Bums are banned in Concord, MA." - RyggTard

You Poor boy... You.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2013
NumenTard is correct on this point...

"This experiment has been done before which as mentioned above has lead to the largest mass deaths in human history. - NoumenTard

Capitalism is the greatest source of premature death that the world has ever seen.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
A monopoly is a capitalist's wet dream.

But can't exist without the force of a gun (the state).
When the state protects private propery rights for all, it enables competiton.
The most recent example of capitalism is the computer/internet/cell phone industry. Technology has moved so fast govt can't catch up. But when it slows down, the govt gets pissed when the company's don't come to them and pay protection money.
The 'liberal' Michael Kinsley documented this quite well:
"Bill Gates initially resisted the notion that Microsoft needed to hire a lot of lobbyists and lawyers. Ultimately, in refusing to play the Washington game, there was a feeling that Microsoft was being downright unpatriotic."
http://articles.l...20110405
NOW the state acts like the Mafia demanding tribute. Whose fault is that?
Plundering wealth is easier when the state has the MONOPOLY on force.
Don't blame capitalists for stifling capitalism.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
One of the greatest capitalists left in the USA is Koch Industries. They are still privately held, make a great profit and have a strong and loyal employee base. And the socialists are constantly condemning them, but not Soros or Buffet or Imelt. Wonder why?

FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 03, 2013
Plundering wealth is easier when the state has the MONOPOLY on force.
You support monopolies. You've stated as much. See your opinion on Standard Oil, among others.

Damn the 'conservatives' on this site are dumb. Not that many are intelligent at all, but the ones here, damn.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2013
It's just so cute how 'conservatives' think the military, nuclear weapons, and virtually everything that keeps them from having colostomies to keep from continously shitting themselves would exist without taxes.

John Galt herp durp. I'm laffin my curve off over here.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
Who make most of their money through the manupulation of the oil commodity market and use a portion of that money to fund political campaigns that protect their wealth at the expense of the welfare of their fellow citizens, their nation and the world.

"One of the greatest capitalists left in the USA is Koch Industries." - RyggTard

It is not at all surprising that Randite RyggTard is a supporter of all manner of Corruption, since the founder of his movement took as one of her closest friends a child murderer, whom she called a "moral superman" after he cut the legs off a kidnapped little girl in order to get better access to her genitals.

http://www.vidoev...-atheist

Know the Enemy.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
Every time RyggTard opens his mouth, nonsense flies out.

"When the state protects private propery rights for all, it enables competiton." - RyggTard

There is no concept of ownership in the natural world, and yet there is clearly competition for resources and material goods.

http://www.youtub...nnmuYAdw

Know the enemy
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
Your statement presumes that government cares more for inconveniencing people than it does for the loss of life and inefficiency embodies by higher fuel consumption rates.

"The whole point here is that a "social progressive" gov acts counter to such inconveniences of its populace, therefore it would NOT arrive at the conclusion you just invented." - NumenTard

Constantly we find that you are incapable of considering alternatives that are outside of your ideological view.

"Historically the greater payoff is to leave personal liberty as intact as possible." - NumenTard

Historically 7 billion people weren't pissing into my drinking water, and throwing their garbage into the street.

Your mental disease is now my problem since your sphere of stench now regularly intersects with my nose.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
When government is formed by the people, your distinction between government and the people becomes irrelevant.

"As a general rule, should people control the actions of government or should the government have control over the people?" - Ricar

"You seem to believe that people, in general, are not capable of ruling over themselves." - Ricar

If they were capable of such a thing, then Government would not have been created to govern the people.

Anarchy is not something that rational, thinking people promote as you seem to be doing.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
The U.S. budget crisis has been created by Republican fools who can't add or subtract, and Republican Traitors who have actively worked to bankrupt the nation.

The plan of those Republican traitors has the name "starve the beast".

Here is a quote from one of them...

"We need to manufacture an (economic) crisis in order to assure that there are no alternatives to a smaller government." - Jeb Bush - Impris magazine, 1995

"It is not hard to see that AntiAlias's "experts in government" can't even balance budgets in a country like the USA" - NumenTard

Do you think that these Republican Traitors have succeeded in manufacturing their economic crisis?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2013
Standard Oil was NOT a monopoly and never was.
If Standard Oil WAS a monopoly, why did they sell the best quality kerosene at the lowest prices?
That flies in the face of what socialists claim is the reason for a monopoly.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2013
National defense is a legitimate function of the the govt and national defense is NOT why the budget is exploding.
Socialists are wasting money on income redistribution programs, unfunded entitlements, and an exploding monopolistic regulatory state.
Since these costs and higher taxes destroy wealth, the economy contracts, reducing tax REVENUES lead the govt borrow money. And since the govt has control of the banks and they are borrowing so much, the govt forces interests rates to zero % and when no one wants to led the govt money, the govt prints more money to buy the debt.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2013
"Historically the greater payoff is to leave personal liberty as intact as possible." - NumenTard Historically 7 billion people weren't pissing into my drinking water, and throwing their garbage into the street.


Where did I say that gov has NO legitimate function in society? Put an effort into understanding ones point rather than composing absurd and over the top silly responses.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2013
It is not hard to see that AntiAlias's "experts in government" can't even balance budgets in a country like the USA
Please note that I never said experts IN government. I truly believe that governements currently are comprised of remarkeably few experts but largely of bought cronies the world over. - antialias_physorg


But government are the only ones who can implement laws and regulations (by consulting with your experts). Are you finally admitting here that government is thus an ineffective and corrupt vehicle for 'planning' societies by applying social engineering?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2013
"Historically the greater payoff is to leave personal liberty as intact as possible." - NumenTard Historically 7 billion people weren't pissing into my drinking water, and throwing their garbage into the street.


Where did I say that gov has NO legitimate function in society? Put an effort into understanding ones point rather than composing absurd and over the top silly responses.

The most polluted areas have totalitarian govts and bad economies.
Free people with a strong economy demand clean water and have the economic and political power to support it.
BTW, I wonder how many Concord residents use water filters or have a bottled water service in their homes?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2013
"The ban is intended to encourage use of tap water and curb the worldwide problem of plastic pollution."

I'm sure some Concord town residents feel they are more enlightened and intelligent than everyone else, but how does this law accomplish what is intended?
Of course it will do nothing but cut sales in the town of Concord. Tourists won't be able to buy bottled water and the town residents will stock up on bottled water at Whole Foods in Bedford or Trader Joes in Burlington.
Why do the 'enlightened' act so irrationally?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2013
It's just so cute how 'conservatives' think the military, nuclear weapons, and virtually everything that keeps them from having colostomies to keep from continously shitting themselves would exist without taxes.


This is patently false. Did the Huffington post tell you that? Where did anyone here say the there is NO legitimate role for gov? Of course taxes are needed to maintain those limited roles.

The gov has a spending problem not a tax problem,... it spends $1.2 trillion per year more than it collects in taxes. In fact it CAN'T collect enough taxes to cover that without tanking the economy. It is purposely devaluing the dollar.

Would you continue to give your gambling addicted friend more money with only a promise that he would stop gambling sometime, ...eventually, ...well maybe , ...but likely not?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013
You also have to look at the bigger picture. Bottle water hurts us in more ways than just plastic pollution. It takes tons of energy to pump the water, make the bottles, bottle the water, and then transport it around the country. If you filled up a bottle 1/3 of the way with oil, thats how much it takes to ship it. On top of that, most of the bottled water companies use tap water and if its not tap water, then they get it from pumping millions of gallons of water out of natural streams and other bodies of water which has effected the humans, plants, and animals in many communities. Also it takes 3 oz of crude oil to produce just one bottle of water. If you don't believe me or you disagree then you should watch the documentary, Flow. It will probably change your mind.


So what do we do? Kill animals and use leather canteens? Find rivers and lap it out directly everytime we're thirsty? I'm honestly just curious as to your alternative...
lona2244
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2013
"So what do we do? Kill animals and use leather canteens? Find rivers and lap it out directly everytime we're thirsty? I'm honestly just curious as to your alternative... "

Well there is this handy thing called tap water that comes right out of the faucet in your sink. And if you don't like tap water, then there are filters to help with that. If your willing to buy bottled water than you should be willing to buy a water filter because it would cost a lot less per year. As for killing animals to make canteens, feel free to but I hope you will at least use more of the animal than just the skin. Or you could just go get one of those reusable water bottles. That would probably be a little bit easier.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
Well there is this handy thing called tap water that comes right out of the faucet in your sink. And if you don't like tap water, then there are filters to help with that. If your willing to buy bottled water than you should be willing to buy a water filter because it would cost a lot less per year. As for killing animals to make canteens, feel free to but I hope you will at least use more of the animal than just the skin. Or you could just go get one of those reusable water bottles. That would probably be a little bit easier.


But I could do any or all of the alternatives I mentioned. What you want me to do is what YOU want. Let's be clear here, there is no "nature" to speak here. Nature is a bunch of chemicals cycling via the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't have values, only humans do. What you're doing is attempting to force at the point of a gun your values on other human beings with respect to the environment. (cont)
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2013
@Waroumenon The gov has a spending problem not a tax problem,... it spends $1.2 trillion per year more than it collects in taxes.
That's almost the military budget. Eliminate defense spending and you have a balanced budget!
Socialists are wasting money on income redistribution programs, unfunded entitlements, and an exploding monopolistic regulatory state.
Putting money in circulation stimulates the economy. Hoarding it causes the problem you see in Asia: societies obsessed with saving that can only maintain their economy with a devalued currency and massive exports.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2013
You also have to look at the bigger picture. Bottle water hurts us in more ways than just plastic pollution. It takes tons of energy to pump the water, make the bottles, bottle the water, and then transport it around the country. If you filled up a bottle 1/3 of the way with oil, thats how much it takes to ship it. On top of that, most of the bottled water companies use tap water and if its not tap water, then they get it from pumping millions of gallons of water out of natural streams and other bodies of water which has effected the humans, plants, and animals in many communities. Also it takes 3 oz of crude oil to produce just one bottle of water. If you don't believe me or you disagree then you should watch the documentary, Flow. It will probably change your mind.

And a bottle of water is cheap enough people will spend THEIR money for it.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
I'm not always going to have a tap at my disposal. I'm not always going to remember to bring a reusable bottle with me. I may not want to do either. If I don't I'm not opposed to being forced to pay for my choices in a monetary fashion. What I'm opposed to is someone pretending they've already won the argument because they're "speaking for" the environment or nature or some such superstitious nonsense and FORCE their values on others on that basis alone. People do that with religion all the time and my reaction is exactly the same.

In short I think this law is beyond ludicrous. I think that ANYTHING human beings do has an effect on the environment. I think that this is fear driven, and if you're in a place where water bottles scare you I'm honestly sorry for you, genuinely heart felt sorry and no sarcasm at all.
lona2244
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2013
"But I could do any or all of the alternatives I mentioned. What you want me to do is what YOU want. Let's be clear here, there is no "nature" to speak here. Nature is a bunch of chemicals cycling via the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't have values, only humans do. What you're doing is attempting to force at the point of a gun your values on other human beings with respect to the environment. (cont) "

How can you say nature has no value? We would not exist without nature, and thats the way that we are headed at the moment because we are slowly destroying the earth. It may not ever effect you, but if we don't put restrictions on humans selfish behavior, then our grandchildren and great grandchildren and so on and so forth may not even have an earth to live on. Sometimes you have to sacrifice things in order to do the right thing. You should really watch the documentary that I mentioned before. These water companies are hurting not just nature but also other people.
lona2244
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
I guess your just too selfish to put down a water bottle for the well being of other.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2013
That's almost the military budget. Eliminate defense spending and you have a balanced budget!


Actually the military budget is 700 billion, so you're off by almost a factor of 50%. Secondly I agree we could spend a lot less on the military, but if you ELIMINATE defense spending you're going to be very sorry. It would be like the only billionaire in a severely economically depressed town take out his alarm system and advertise it to the community...
Putting money in circulation stimulates the economy.


If you have a dollar bill and tear it in half and say that both are worth a dollar you aren't stimulating anything, you are in fact devaluating the currency. It's why we have laws against counterfeiting....not rocket science.

You're confusing wealthy people being protective of their assets in an unstable regulatory environment and the government printing money like it's going out of style.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2013
How can you say nature has no value?


I didn't, that's you putting words into my mouth.

We would not exist without nature, and thats the way that we are headed at the moment because we are slowly destroying the earth.


That's your opinion, not a fact.

It may not ever effect you, but if we don't put restrictions on humans selfish behavior, then our grandchildren and great grandchildren and so on and so forth may not even have an earth to live on.


That's an emotional plea, not an argument.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice things in order to do the right thing.


Who decides what the right thing is? You?

You should really watch the documentary that I mentioned before. These water companies are hurting not just nature but also other people.


You've given me no reason to think I'd get anything out of it other than a mirror of your beliefs. I see no value in doing so because you've given me no valid REASON to.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2013
I guess your just too selfish to put down a water bottle for the well being of other.


How selfish is it to expect everyone to agree with you and if they don't force them to with threats of violence?

Introspection is a valuable tool for growth...just saying.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2013
It is not at all surprising that Randite RyggTard is a supporter of all manner of Corruption, since the founder of his movement took as one of her closest friends a child murderer, whom she called a "moral superman" after he cut the legs off a kidnapped little girl .. - VendicarD


Abject lie. You're a victim of the DailyKos, and are light-years from understanding Rand, as are the dolts that lap up that inane ad hominem shit factory.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2013


Rand was not friends at all with that murderer (Hickman), ...she never knew him.

At the time, the public was outraged at a statement made by Hickman, and publicly quoted,... "What is good for me is right" - Hickman

Since this is at core of her philosophy, she felt compelled to salvage that notion from false association with that murderer. Defending the ideal (not the murderer) Rand states,...

"The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard" - Ayn Rand

She was in fact writing a novel, and wanted the hero of her novel to be,...

"A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me." - Ayn Rand

...." ...And without the degeneracy". She did not condone or admire the acts of that murderer,.. she admired the 'superman' in the philosophy of Nietzsche and the notion and power of egoism.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2013
I guess your just too selfish to put down a water bottle for the well being of other.

How many people will be out of work by banning plastic bottles and how much business, and jobs, will be lost by those selling the bottled water?
The selfish ones are those using the power of the gun, aka socialists, to force others to do their selfish bidding.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2013
We would not exist without nature,

How can nature be destroyed?
Nature is the universe so how can we who exist in the universe destroy the universe?
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2013
The cleanest, safest water in the world is created by the Navy on nuclear submarines using distillation.
The issue is clean and abundant water is an energy issue and nuclear energy can distill all the water needed from the ocean.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
We would not exist without nature,

How can nature be destroyed?
Nature is the universe so how can we who exist in the universe destroy the universe?


Moreover, we are a part of nature.

One might as well say "Nature would not exist without nature"...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2013
I guess [you're] just too selfish to put down a water bottle for the well being of a other.


People will drink more water if it is conveniently available in clean form, and as a result, will become more healthy.

Why are you selfishly preventing the well being of others, ...all in the name of your inconsistent worship of Gaia,...

The by-product of petroleum used to make plastic originally came from the ground, so giving it back to Gaia should not upset her.

Further more, tree-huggers should desire plastic, because it represents a quantity of petroleum derivative that is NOT burned, releasing CO2.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2013
We would not exist without nature,

How can nature be destroyed?
Nature is the universe so how can we who exist in the universe destroy the universe?


In addition, and what many tree-hugger socialists in training never understand, is that humanity IS a component of nature,.. not a parasite or infliction upon nature.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013
That's almost the military budget. Eliminate defense spending and you have a balanced budget!
Actually the military budget is 700 billion, so you're off by almost a factor of 50%.
You're just regurgitating figures put out for the sheeple. In reality "the odd factoid that the Department of Defense and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issue different figures of what the DOD Base Budget really is" http://antiwar.co...rillion/

If you have a dollar bill and tear it in half and say that both are worth a dollar you aren't stimulating anything
Unfortunately untrue. By splitting assets debtors are able to repay loans. In 1500s with gold it was impossible for all debtors to repay their loans with interest, because the amount of gold was fixed. Thus some had to be dropped from 50 feet onto the courtyard stone so their gold could be apportioned as interest.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
You're just regurgitating figures put out for the sheeple.


No those are the numbers. I'm not buying inflated defense costs put out by people with "anti-war" in their URL. Sorry, but I'm guessing they have and agenda. Besides one doesn't factor in pensions when calculating the costs of education. Go fish.

Unfortunately untrue. By splitting assets


You aren't splitting assets, you're splitting paper. Be clear.

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013
They are permitted to do so as long as their choice does not negatively impact upon the rest of society.

"a bottle of water is cheap enough people will spend THEIR money for it." - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. Like all Libertarian/Randites his greatest aspiration is to be a anti-social psychopath who values nothing but money.

Filth.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
They are permitted to do so as long as their choice does not negatively impact upon the rest of society.


And who decides what is a "negative impact on the rest of society"? By who's values and standards? Why use those and not another set? What makes those superior to any others?
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013
You should, since the OMB provides essentially the same number.

"I'm not buying inflated defense costs put out by people with "anti-war" in their URL." - ModernMystic

What are you quibbling with? The cost of the ongoing Afghanistan war crime that isn't shown in the official DOD budget?
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013
In this case, citizens who were elected to office by "the people" - Other citizens.

I see that Democracy confuses you.

"And who decides what is a "negative impact on the rest of society"?" - ModernMystic

kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
You're just regurgitating figures put out for the sheeple.
No those are the numbers.
Only if you do accounting for government. In the real world in 2012 the U.S. spent: $125-billion on 22 million veterans, $49-billion for separate retirement funds and sundry activities, $42-billion on homeland security, $22-billion for foreign military sales and aid, and $18-billion broadly on nuclear programs. Throw in $58-billion to cover a fair share of the government's interest costs and the total hits $960-billion. So U.S. spending on national defense jumps from about 3 per cent to 6 per cent of forecast GDP and rises from about 14 per cent to about 26 per cent of total federal spending.

Unfortunately untrue. By splitting assets
You aren't splitting assets, you're splitting paper. Be clear.
Paper which is convertible directly to assets. So to be clear government assistance programs stimulate the economy. Unless there's a panic run on the banks 8P
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2013
They are permitted to do so as long as their choice does not negatively impact upon the rest of society.


That is a false standard. We do many things that can be cataloged as 'negatively impacting the rest of society'. In fact a free society must come with such things built in, or its not a free society.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
So is a bullet to the brain and decapitation.

The extermination of the Republican race will therefore be a natural consequence of it's crimes against humanity.

"In addition, and what many tree-hugger socialists in training never understand, is that humanity IS a component of nature,.." - NumenTard
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2013
NumenTard can't figure out how his rights end when they intersect with the rights of others.

Psychopath's are like that.

"We do many things that can be cataloged as 'negatively impacting the rest of society'." - NumenTard

It is a mental disease.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2013
Me thinks Jean Hill and many of the posters on this thread have suffered significant brain damage and low IQ from drinking too much fluoridated water from the tap.

http://www.fluori...reasons/

#'s 23-25, among other issues caused by this poison.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
NumenTard is apparently unaware of the fact that bottled water is tap water. that is put into bottles. Hence bottled water is not cleaner than tap water.

In fact, bottled water is typically brominated to prevent bacterial growth, making it less "clean" than tap water.

And of course, chemicals from the plastic container leach into the water as well.

"People will drink more water if it is conveniently available in clean form, and as a result, will become more healthy." - NumenTard

Not everyone who purchases bottled water is a fool.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013

http://www.youtub...vgtEnABY

"low IQ from drinking too much fluoridated water from the tap" - cantdrive

Feh
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
Then I suppose you will just have to use a public fountain.

"I'm not always going to have a tap at my disposal." - ModernMystic

I weep for you. I really do.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 04, 2013
People will drink more water if it is conveniently available in clean form, and as a result, will become more healthy." - Noumenon
Noumenon is apparently unaware of the fact that bottled water is tap water. that is put into bottles. Hence bottled water is not cleaner than tap water.


I cited the increase in Volume of bottled water that people drink as being more healthy. I did not imply that bottled water is itself, healthier than tap water.

In fact, apart from impurities visually seen floating in some tap water sources, filtered bottle water and tap water are http://www.mayocl...167,.... bottled water is cleaner and more purified.

Then I suppose you will just have to use a public fountain. -VD


No, he'll be able to continue to drink from bottled water, as the above senility from the 84 year old dope, will not influence the rest of societies mental state.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2013

"Rand was not friends at all with that murderer (Hickman), ...she
never knew him." = NumenTard

She regularly visited him in prison, and they collaborated in writing a book - which was almost completed.

Why do you feel a need to lie about Ayn Rand's friendship with a child molester and child killer?

VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
You haven't shown that sales of bottled water have made people more healthy.

You are just making rediculous and unsubstantiated claims.

"I cited the increase in Volume of bottled water that people drink as being more healthy." - NumenTard

You just make things up as you go along.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (20) Jan 04, 2013
You haven't shown that sales of bottled water have made people more healthy.

You are just making rediculous and unsubstantiated claims.

"I cited the increase in Volume of bottled water that people drink as being more healthy." - NumenTard

You just make things up as you go along.


Drinking more water does. That is the point. Can you read?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2013
So voting on something makes it right, or conversely "bad for society"? What if we voted that CO2 didn't cause global warming...would that have any effect or reality? Is democracy an absolute standard vendicar, or do we get to use our brains too?
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 04, 2013
Rand was not friends at all with that murderer (Hickman), ...she never knew him. = Noumenon
She regularly visited him in prison, and they collaborated in writing a book - which was almost completed. Why do you feel a need to lie about Ayn Rand's friendship with a child molester and child killer? - VenditardD


The fact that you would buy into such internet propaganda, that attempts to associate a 23 year old Ayn Rand, and thus by mush-headed implication conservative principals themselves,.... with a child killer, is demonstration that you are either an intellectual corrupt fraud, or a mindless victim of TheDailyKos and TheHuffingtonPost.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
Only if you do accounting for government.


OK so who should do the accounting for the government? A private firm? An anti-war activist group?

Paper which is convertible directly to assets.


That is totally beside the point. We're talking about the RATIO at which this is done. IOW how much paper equals how many assets. If you print more paper then the ratio changes...it DEVALUES the paper relative to the assets available. It's very very VERY simple.

So to be clear government assistance programs stimulate the economy.


Only if it actually produces something of greater value than the tax money it cost to enact it. Otherwise it's break even or a net loss. You can't say a government program to have people sit and stare at a wall for 8 hours a day and receive $300 at the end of the day is going to stimulate anything but staring at walls....
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
Let me try it another way...

If government assistance programs stimulate the economy, why even bother doing anything else? Why not make the entire economy one huge stimulation package? What am I missing in your logic here?
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
Only if you do accounting for government.
OK so who should do the accounting for the government? A private firm? An anti-war activist group?
Doesn't matter as long as all the costs are tallied. The budget is there for all to see. If you just echo the president without thinking why bother having a free press?
Paper which is convertible directly to assets.
That is totally beside the point. We're talking about the RATIO at which this is done.
That's what the commodity markets do. They are not ratio markets they are 1:1, except for FOREX

Government assistance programs stimulate the economy. Military spending has a negative multiplier effect. Social programs have multipliers of three to seven. Science programs have the highest stimulus multiplier of ten. Conservatives invariably seem only interested in spending on programs with negative returns
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2013
Let me try it another way...
If government assistance programs stimulate the economy, why even bother doing anything else? Why not make the entire economy one huge stimulation package? What am I missing in your logic here?
Accountability. The lending supply should be comparable to goods available. Otherwise there will be inflation. If loans are given beyond the ability of business to repay then there are defaults.

If the USA were a real country they would issue their own currency instead of handing the task off to zionist banksters. Bank's only product is debt while the state could issue a currency and back it with the creditworthness of the economy itself. Regardless, the coinage needs to be expanded to account for growth and this must be done proactively, lest deflation takes control. Historically deflation is a much larger threat than inflation.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
Accountability. The lending supply should be comparable to goods available. Otherwise there will be inflation. If loans are given beyond the ability of business to repay then there are defaults.


What businesses? What accountability? We're talking about the government running the economy with assistance programs. What aren't you getting here?
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2013
Doesn't matter as long as all the costs are tallied. The budget is there for all to see. If you just echo the president without thinking why bother having a free press?


What does my disagreement with you and an activist group over real defense costs have to do with a free press?? Focus.

That's what the commodity markets do. They are not ratio markets they are 1:1, except for FOREX


And I'll ask again, how does this show that printing more money not devalue the money? How does it not change the purchasing power of said currency. Again, please focus.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
Yes.. We all know that you don't like Democratic rule and hate it when society limits your ability to damage society.

Awwwwwwwwwwww.....

You poor, little Tard. We feel for you.... We really do.

"Is democracy an absolute standard vendicar, or do we get to use our brains too?" - Mystic
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
"You haven't shown that sales of bottled water have made people more healthy." - VD

"Drinking more water does" - NumenTard

You are just making up nonsense as you go along.

Deceit is your primary mode of argument.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
The following chart shows it quite nicely.

http://www.mybudg...alue.png

"how does this show that printing more money not devalue the money?" - ModernMystic

Note how the value of the U.S. dollar has risen as money has been printed.

Also note how have of the value of the dollar that has been lost since it's peak was lost during the Reagan Administration's second term.

Once again showing that Republican Economics has been a spectacular failure for America.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
If having a heart operation can extend your life, why eat? Just have heart operations instead.

"If government assistance programs stimulate the economy, why even bother doing anything else?" - ModernMystic

Idiot.

Dollars have no memory. They don't know if they are freshly printed, or come from exchanges in the existing economy. Hence if the exchange of existing dollars in an economy can stimulate it, so too can exchanges of new dollars.

Poor Mystic. He knows so very little about so much.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
NumenTard is a typical denialist conservative who insists that every fact that erodes his sick Randite ideology is either a conspiracy, or a lie.

What a moron.

Suck it up Tard boy. Ayn Rand, your hero, was a antisocial, immoral, phycopath, kook bent on the destruction of your own nation, and who's ideology is directly responsible for America's ongoing fiscal collapse.

http://atheism.ab...ance.htm

http://boingboing...ern.html

Tea Party Patron Saint Ayn Rand Applied for Social Security, Medicare Benefits

http://firedoglak...enefits/

"The fact that you would buy into such internet propaganda, that attempts to associate a 23 year old Ayn Rand, and thus by mush-headed implication conservative principals themselves,.... with a child killer" - NumenTard
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
Romancing the Stone-Cold child Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

http://michaelpre...old.html

kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
That's what the commodity markets do. They are not ratio markets they are 1:1, except for FOREX


And I'll ask again, how does this show that printing more money not devalue the money? How does it not change the purchasing power of said currency.

Unlike your first question this one is good. Since Nixon abandoned the gold standard he made a deal with some minor group in Saudi Arabia to give them military backing and let them retain power in exchange for ONLY selling all Saudi oil in dollars. This created the petrodollar. The illegitimate Saudi royalty then petitioned OPEC as well to only sell oil in dollars, which further instated their power. As a result, the dollar became the world's reserve currency as all oil energy was held in dollar accounts. This made US Treasury bonds the preferential safe investment, which allowed the US to assume a massive deficit and Americans to live beyond their means.

Every dollar printed entrenches it as every country trades oil.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (18) Jan 05, 2013
Romancing the Stone-Cold child Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

[link to nothingness]



You're an idiot and are the reason internet propaganda exists.

I already explained this issue above. You never heard of authors researching for characters for a fiction novel? She used one attribute of this Hickman, who was at the time on the radar screen of the media, to defend a principal. She explicitly stated, as I quoted above, 'without the degeneracy',... but dishonest internet educated trolls like you will continue to believe want serves your purpose in constructing an adolescent and ridiculous caricature of conservatives, simply because it is easier for you. Btw, this was 20 years before 'the fountainhead', when she was 23 years old.

Ayn Rand is one of the most taken out of context authors in history. Morons, think that if they can somehow topple Rand, then conservationism will fall with it. It's the same fraudulent racism charge that was made against the 'tea party'.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2013
Nice rationalization, monster.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (19) Jan 05, 2013
"You haven't shown that sales of bottled water have made people more healthy." - VD

"Drinking more water does" - NumenTard

You are just making up nonsense as you go along.

Deceit is your primary mode of argument.


I'm not having a debate with you about the importance of drinking water. End.

Nice rationalization, monster. - another dolt enters the fray


Please tell me how it is that i'm a "monster". Seriously, do you honestly believe that Ayn Rand condoned the murder and dismemberment of a 12 year old girl, in any way,... and that conservatism in anyway hinges on such behavior?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 05, 2013
What is laughable is that you have to go all the way back to 1928 and irresponsibly misinterpret statements out of context, from a 23 year old aspirant novel author, to "link" to a child killer,..

...while liberals have been advocating the murder of babies for over four decades, and one can plainly see from even a cursory glance at modern history the massive number of deaths directly a result of Planned Societies, a core principal of all far left ideologies. Thus, this must mean that present liberals and socialists are like monsters. QED.

I see, it is easy using your standards.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2013
Seriously, do you honestly believe that Ayn Rand condoned the murder and dismemberment of a 12 year old girl

Yes. She said she did. It's amazing how far you'll try to bend reality to support your worldview, monster.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Jan 05, 2013
Seriously, do you honestly believe that Ayn Rand condoned the murder and dismemberment of a 12 year old girl

Yes. She said she did. It's amazing how far you'll try to bend reality to support your worldview, monster.


Then you should be able to show me a quote from her saying that killing a 12 year old girl is acceptable behavior.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2013
Why are you talking about killing little girls in an article about bottled water?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 05, 2013
Why are you talking about killing little girls in an article about bottled water?


At least your dishonesty is consistent, otherwise you would have asked VD that question, as she invented that discussion thread to begin with.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2013
If anyone must bend reality to support their worldview it is the socialist.
Socialism has resulted in millions murdered and socialism is causing economic collapse around the world, and the socialists keep insisting they must have more control, more power.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
If anyone must bend reality to support their worldview it is the socialist.
Socialism has resulted in millions murdered and socialism is causing economic collapse around the world, and the socialists keep insisting they must have more control, more power.
Yes, in the guise of religion
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
Then you should be able to show me a quote from her saying that killing a 12 year old girl is acceptable behavior.
Bolshevist zionists such as Ayn Rand and Koch brothers murdered millions of children in Russia. While Rand may have encountered guilt for the outcome of her kind's power grab, her zionism merely catapulted her twisted ideas into yet another zionist ideology designed to imprison the goyum with ideology. The weakness of gentiles is to be caught within ideologies, which is a psychological crutch for those lacking a tribal identity.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
That would be wise, since your idiotic claim was that drinkig more water is good.

"I'm not having a debate with you about the importance of drinking water." - NumenTard

Without specifying a limit, your statement is equivalent to claiming that it is good to drink an infinite amount of water.

So a limit is implied by logic.

The question is if current levels of water consumption are below or above that which shows maximum benefit.

You refused to provide evidence to support your implied claim.

Your statements are idiotic because your thinking is inferior.

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
30 million alone murdered by American Capitalists.

"Socialism has resulted in millions murdered" - RyggTard

RyggTard is ideologically incapable of admitting that American Capitalists were financial backers of the NAZI movement.

You know. People like the Bush's.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
What a shame for NumenTard that Rand never regretted her love for and admiration of that child murderer.

Not even when she applied for Medicare and Medicade to pay for her self induced lung cancer.

"What is laughable is that you have to go all the way back to 1928 and irresponsibly misinterpret statements out of context, from a 23 year old aspirant novel author, to "link" to a child killer,.." - NumenTard

Shouldn't she have died alone, penniless in a ditch, where she belonged NumenTard?

That was the fate she wanted for others on welfare.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
First: A fetus is not a baby.
The term fetus exists to make exactly the distinction
you dishonestly ignore.

Second: Liberals don't argue that children should be killed.
They insist that women have the choice to terminate a pregnancy for any reason up to some reasonable cut off point, say around 3 to 4 months, or at later dates as medically necessary or correct in terms of medical ethics.

"liberals have been advocating the murder of babies for over four decades" - NumenTard

Like all Conservative Tards, NumenTard has too low an IQ to be able to understand or evaluate nuance.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2013
She did not condone the act, but loved the psychotic, and socially deviant ideology behind it, as it is the core of her own beliefs as an anti-social psychopath.

"Seriously, do you honestly believe that Ayn Rand condoned the murder and dismemberment of a 12 year old girl, in any way." - NumenTard
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
I see that NumenTard elected to censor the link the a criticism of Ayn Rand's love affair with child murderer William Hickman.

I will repost it for that reason.

Romancing the Stone-Cold child Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

http://michaelpre...old.html

"She explicitly stated, as I quoted above, 'without the degeneracy'" - NumenTard

Randism is nothing but moral degeneracy.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
Like all Conservative Tards, NumenTard has too low an IQ to be able to understand or evaluate nuance.
Sums it up nicely. Conservaturds seem innately opposed to birth control and family planning, probably having realized at some point their mother's unspoken regret bringing them to term. Many fetal conservaturds are spontaneously aborted. But unsafe sex and broken condoms ensure enough bypass nature's cleansing system to achieve voting age and elect one of their own fetal-alcohol functioning addicts as president
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2013
http://www.youtub...R6e9Z6es

"Ayn Rand is one of the most taken out of context authors in history." - NumenTard
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2013
If anyone must bend reality to support their worldview it is the socialist.
Socialism has resulted in millions murdered and socialism is causing economic collapse around the world, and the socialists keep insisting they must have more control, more power.
Yes, in the guise of religion

Lenin required all communist party (socialists) members to be atheists.
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2013
Lenin was vastly more intelligent than RyggTard.

Randism is nothing but moral degeneracy.
sirchick
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2013
Hail Concord!

Let the beverage companies drown in their own reconstituted tap water.

Bottled water is the stupidest, most redundant product ever conceived of. My hat is off to Jean Hill, for calling attention to a dangerous and wasteful scam foisted upon us by the corporocrat class.



If you are on hoilday and cannot drink tap water due to its quality the bottled water is essential. I'm from Uk and very often we cannot drink the water in southern European countries. So bottled water is all we can drink. Bottled water has a place - it's not totally useless.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2013
Correct.

"Bottled water has a place - it's not totally useless." - Sirchick

The issue is utility, not "freedom" as the low lifes in the peanut gallery are shouting.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2013
Lenin required all communist party (socialists) members to be atheists.
One of whom you worship in turn, ryggie! Can you grasp why some consider you daft?
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2013
"The State Is My Shepard, I shall not want"

http://www.youtub...MxUaBHco
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 06, 2013
Without specifying a limit, your statement is equivalent to claiming that it is good to drink an infinite amount of water.


That you don't have such basic sense, is likely the reason you're the bed-wetter that you are.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2013
Noumenon has a piss-fetish, doesn't he?
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2013
Noumenon has a piss-fetish, doesn't he?
-FrankHerbert aka Theghostofotto1923

That's highly doubtful since it is YOU who seems to be doing all the pissing all over Physorg.

Hey Blotto/Frank...you made a statement in http://phys.org/n...eet.html

I answered you and asked for the evidence for your assertions about Antarctica but you never bothered to answer with unassailable evidence that would prove your assertion that something doesn't exist, which I understood that to mean the active volcano under the ice sheet in the western Antarctic.

Seems to me (and others) that you have NO evidence to prove what you said. Why, even VendicarD didn't stay to challenge my articles.

Now I find both of you in HERE!! I want to see your proof that AGW is making the ice sheet melt in the Byrd station area. Can you do that? If not...you're just a fat stinky tardboy who makes statements with nothing to back them up.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2013


If you are on hoilday and cannot drink tap water due to its quality the bottled water is essential. I'm from Uk and very often we cannot drink the water in southern European countries. So bottled water is all we can drink. Bottled water has a place - it's not totally useless.


Not entirely as things stand, but, rather than selling it to line the pockets of the vampire class with the proceeds from a public resource, wouldn't it be better to spend that money improving drinking water supply/infrastructure, so that EVERYONE --not just relatively well-heeled travelers and vampires-- would thereby benefit from that day forward?

And, by your own logic --what's to prevent your own local authorities to cease water purification efforts, privatise the currently public resource, and make it so you can ONLY purchase bottled water?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that it isn't on their minds.

Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Pepsico have already made attempts at this sort of resource grab.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2013
public resource,

?
Rivers, lakes, ground water are public resources and there is zero cost to provide this 'public' resource to those who need it?
Especially to a quality that won't make people sick and spread disease?
I pay local utilities or a local water board for this 'public' resource.
BTW, the main ingredient for all canned and bottled soda is water, purified by the 'vampire' bottler.
After Katrina, bottlers in the region stopped canning soda and canned and bottled pure water. Govts didn't do this. It was the 'vampires' who had the facilities, aka capital, to create pure water, package it and ship it to those who needed it.
BTW, have you heard the story of how Fiji water was coerced by the socialist Fiji govt to keep bottling and selling water from Fiji?
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2013
a fat stinky tardboy who makes statements with nothing to back them up.

You shouldn't talk about yourself like that.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2013
public resource,


Rivers, lakes, ground water are public resources and there is zero cost to provide this 'public' resource to those who need it?
Especially to a quality that won't make people sick and spread disease?


Read before you write, Swenson.

I pay local utilities or a local water board for this 'public' resource.


As do I. CHEAP AND SAFE for all. Not inflated prices to create profit for a few vampires.

BTW, the main ingredient for all canned and bottled soda is water, purified by the 'vampire' bottler.


So its drinkers won't be put off by the taste and come back for more!

After Katrina, bottlers in the region stopped canning soda and canned and bottled pure water. Govts didn't do this. It was the 'vampires' who had the facilities, aka capital, to create pure water, package it and ship it to those who needed it.


Via tax $$$ allocated by our "Socialist" gub. Vampires score!

RE Fiji: Vampires score!!!

Now pissoff, moron.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2013
CHEAP AND SAFE for all. Not inflated prices to create profit for a few vampires.


Move to Cuba if you want the government to invoke ad-hoc rules as they go along,... are you in America?! Read history, planned societies have been attempted before.

Immature idealists like you for some reason have a strange penchant against profit. Are you so corrupted by pseudo-socialist propaganda that you can't even agree with the most far leftist president in American history, ... in that the free market is a greatest force for progress? Are you so unscientifically minded that you can't acknowledge that the natural force of profit motive and free choice, is orders of a magnitude more efficient than a button-pushing and dial-turning, reactionary "social progressive" gov? What's wrong with profit?

Why are tree-huggers not advocating MORE plastic then, if it represents a carbon based by-product that would have been burned releasing co2 if it wasn't compounded into plastic.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2013
"What's wrong with profit and free choice?" - NumenTard

This is the answer to NumenTard's question...

http://www.youtub...KJQ2r72g
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2013
"What's wrong with profit and free choice?" - NumenTard

This is the answer to NumenTard's question...

http://www.youtub...KJQ2r72g


I'm not clicking on your links. State it in your own words.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2013
The following chart shows it quite nicely.

http://www.mybudg...alue.png

"how does this show that printing more money not devalue the money?" - ModernMystic

Note how the value of the U.S. dollar has risen as money has been printed.

Also note how have of the value of the dollar that has been lost since it's peak was lost during the Reagan Administration's second term.

Once again showing that Republican Economics has been a spectacular failure for America.


That's comparing the dollar against other currencies, not against itself. IOW you're setting up a strawman and knocking it down/ comparing apples to oranges. If you print more dollars they're going to be worth less...period. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2013
Yes.. We all know that you don't like Democratic rule and hate it when society limits your ability to damage society.


You do? When did I say that? You read minds? Or do you attempt to put words in peoples mouths to make false statements and dishonest "points" in order to support your incomplete worldview?

My point was that democratic rule is NOT an absolute value or standard.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2013
Nor was the ban on water bottles even voted on democratically,... as the USA is a republic. But the people can
[url=http://www.bottledwater.org/ibwa-statement-regarding-concord-massachusetts-ban-sale-bottled-water]repeal it. and not vote for the 84 senile twit again.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2013
repeal it. and not vote for the 84 senile twit again
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2013
If both the EPA and FDA approve of bottled water, you can't arbitrarily ban things in a free society. If the vast majority of people in that town didn't approve of botled water, then they evidently wouldn't buy it and so it wouldn't be something needing "banning". So, democracy has nothing to do with the socialist actions taken by the dimwit officials in that town. It will be over turned.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2013
If both the EPA and FDA approve of bottled water, you can't arbitrarily ban things in a free society. If the vast majority of people in that town didn't approve of botled water, then they evidently wouldn't buy it and so it wouldn't be something needing "banning". So, democracy has nothing to do with the socialist actions taken by the dimwit officials in that town. It will be over turned.

Most people in Concord drive to Bedford to shop at Whole Foods and can buy bottled water there.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2013
[q9If both the EPA and FDA approve of bottled water
EPA and FDA don't approve based on ecological impact. They only approve based on consumer safety.

And you may notice that the law did not make plastic bottles or bottled water illegal - only single serving sizes. This is not a "ban on plastic bottles" in any way shape or form.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2013
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn't regulate such things for environmental impact???

And yes it is effectivily a ban on "bottled water". Size is not really relevent as they're banning the most convenient and used size,... and in any case the loss of liberty is of the same size.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2013
.
sirchick
2 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2013


If you are on hoilday and cannot drink tap water due to its quality the bottled water is essential. I'm from Uk and very often we cannot drink the water in southern European countries. So bottled water is all we can drink. Bottled water has a place - it's not totally useless.


Not entirely as things stand, but, rather than selling it to line the pockets of the vampire class with the proceeds from a public resource, wouldn't it be better to spend that money improving drinking water supply/infrastructure, so that EVERYONE --not just relatively well-heeled travelers and vampires-- would thereby benefit from that day forward?


Most likely because countries cannot afford to do this. Greece for example is completely bankrupt. And I'm sure improving quality of drinking water to cater to tourists when its sufficient for their own people is not top of the priority list.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2013
My freedumb!

Noumenon, you also clearly don't understand what "republic" means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the public getting to vote on banning small water bottles.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2013
My freedumb!

Noumenon, you also clearly don't understand what "republic" means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the public getting to vote on banning small water bottles.


So, what is a republic?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2013
My freedumb!

Noumenon, you also clearly don't understand what "republic" means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the public getting to vote on banning small water bottles.


You are very presumptuous of what others know and don't know.

Did the people of that town vote democratically to impose that ban, or did elected representatives of the people make that decision?
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2013
My freedumb!

Noumenon, you also clearly don't understand what "republic" means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the public getting to vote on banning small water bottles.


You are very presumptuous of what others know and don't know.

Did the people of that town vote democratically to impose that ban, or did elected representatives of the people make that decision?


HAHAHAHAHA,

What a crack up! nonoUNme, who demonstrates truly prodigous self-inflicted stupidiosity each and every time he/she/it comments here attempts to deride another for being unknowledgeable.

What a maroon.

Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done, and just because profit can be derived from a service or product doesn't make it beneficial for all. This is especially true when ALL THE COSTS of making that product or service available to the end user are accounted for, as I and others have pointed out over and over again.

Your willful stupidiosity --QED.

Thrasymachus
not rated yet Jan 07, 2013
MM, we have a debt-backed currency. New currency is created when someone takes on a debt denominated in US dollars. The value of that currency is directly related to the value of the obligation that was taken on when that currency was created.

An obligation has value through two features. The most obvious is the size and nature of the obligation. With regard to debt, it is the promise to return a certain amount of money by a certain date. The second feature is a function on the first; it is the likelihood that the obligation will be met. Obligations that are more likely to be met are more valuable than obligations that are less likely to be met, other things being equal.

Wrt to debt, a decrease in the overall supply of currency means that it's harder to get money to pay back a debt, reducing the value of debt, and it doesn't make sense to borrow a lot, again reducing the value of debt, and thus the value of currency.

IOW, value of currency is as much about velocity as supply.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2013
My freedumb!

Noumenon, you also clearly don't understand what "republic" means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the public getting to vote on banning small water bottles.


You are very presumptuous of what others know and don't know.

Did the people of that town vote democratically to impose that ban, or did elected representatives of the people make that decision?


HAHAHAHAHA,

What a crack up! nonoUNme, who demonstrates truly prodigous self-inflicted stupidiosity each and every time he/she/it comments here attempts to deride another for being unknowledgeable.

What a maroon.



Yes, I've noticed before that you like to engineer your posts to give an "impression" that others are wrong and you're right, without ever supplying any actual content yourself.

If I am wrong about something I have no problem admitting it. I am wrong many times. How about you tell me who I am wrong above.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2013
]Noumenon]...attempts to deride another for being unknowledgeable.


What are you referring to here, specifically?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2013
EDIT: How about you tell me where I am wrong above.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2013
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done, and just because profit can be derived from a service or product doesn't make it beneficial for all.


What? A free market product is never " beneficial for all", only for those who buy the product and those who sell and produce it. If there is a potential for making money then de facto, it SHOULD and will be done, unless it harms others. Everything that humans do causes garbage and waste. This is an insufficient reason for banning these type of things. You would have to start banning everything.

This is especially true when ALL THE COSTS of making that product or service available to the end user are accounted for, as I and others have pointed out over and over again.


All the costs are accounted for in manufacturing a product. It is up to the end user to dispose of waste, for which he is taxed by the local government to do so.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2013
My freedumb!

Noumenon, you also clearly don't understand what "republic" means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the public getting to vote on banning small water bottles.


So, what is a republic?

The USA is supposed to be a republic.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2013
Looks like you're a socialist when it comes to education Noumenon. Why don't you go bootstrap yourself some knowledge?
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2013
A liberals white-flag is ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims. Looks like FH is taking BS'er lessons from Taliban.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2013
"Amid a smattering of calls for President Obama to skirt a looming debt ceiling fight by minting a couple of trillion-dollar coins, one Republican lawmaker says he's introducing a bill to make sure it doesn't happen."

-Because, well, it illuminates the whole farce of wealth-generation doesn't it? Wealth originates in GOVERNMENTS doesn't it? The king declares that a colony shall be established and the royal coffers are opened, and it is made so.

Entrepreneurs cannot operate without loans. This money is doled out by govts, at the Proper Time, to be used in the Proper Ways. Clever entrepreneurs will gladly accept it and use it the way it was Intended; rather than trying something else with no financial backing.

Govts generate wealth by creating money out of thin air. The will and the authority of the king, who alone can protect the culture and the system which makes it all possible.

Minting trillion dollar coins would only be this Process in reverse.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2013
A liberals white-flag is ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims. Looks like FH is taking BS'er lessons from Taliban.

Ad hominem attack? Check.
Unsubstantiated claim? Check.
Hypocrisy? Check.

The meaning of "republic" as per the framers of the Constitution is common knowledge. I have no need to back up my assertion of fact. The burden is upon you to educate yourself before you open your mouth in a public forum.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2013
I used the term correctly.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2013
You haven't provided enough content to have asserted anything, and your charge is vacuous.

I responded to this post,...
We all know that you don't like Democratic rule and hate it when society limits your ability to damage society.
by saying ,... "Nor was the ban on water bottles even voted on democratically,... as the USA is a republic.",... obviously implying elected officials put the ban in place, and there was no "Democratic rule" about individual matters like banning bottled water. I then provided a link showing "Concord Residents for Consumer Choice" arranging a petition to have that ban repealed. What do you object to in my use of that term in the context which I did?
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2013
The law was passed by democratically elected office holders at the local level. Somehow, I don't think you failed to realize that, ergo your use of "republic" was incorrect. This is exactly the sort of thing done and the way a republic goes about doing business.

Once again, this isn't an issue of freedom. It's an issue of freedumb.

More to the point though, your use of "republic" was incorrect because republicanism has nothing to do with democracy. They are independent though marriable. The term is so vague it basically means "not a monarchy, probably with elections." Not like you'll accept this. You've bought into some strange america-centric doublespeak-cult. The converted are always the most fervent.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2013
Wow, So according to you the term is "vague", yet I still managed to use it wrong? It means representative government, Frank,... as opposed to citizens voting on every little thing directly.

" Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. [...] A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics." - Merriam-Webster

FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2013
Only tools quote the dictionary. "Republic" as used in the Constitution is a very vague term. You attributed popular elections to it. That is not correct.
In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.

http://en.wikiped...Republic
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2013
In particular in response to this,...

and hate it when society limits your ability to damage society


I pointed out that "Society" did not limit ones use of bottled water in that town because they didn't have the opportunity to do so, and gave the reason. Plus, I provided a link where they are getting an opportunity to repeal it showing Society in that town not only disagrees with it, they may repeal it.

..……

Guy, it means "representative government".
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2013
The intent of the Constitutional Federal Republic of the United States of America, as enshrined in the 9th and 10th amendments was to allow cities like Concord to enact, by pure democracy if desired, stupid laws.
Neighboring cities, states can enact, or not, such laws.
Such experiments will soon show such laws to be foolish, or not, as the people of Concord cross city borders to buy bottled water and bring it home, or not.
Only those who may earn profit from the sale of the banned items will be injured and with what real benefit?
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2013
Guy, it means "representative government".

Keep telling yourself that. Like I said, doublespeak-cult. Giving up defintions destroys your worldview.

Rygg is right except about the law being stupid.
SmaryJerry
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2013
People always think they know best. This is just like the banning of normal lightbulbs in what was it michigan or something? It's jsut rediculous that we aren't allowed to sell/buy something that does no harm. It's just another form of forcing people to act a certain way instead of enlightening them on recycling or requiring a label showing the water came from a local source. It just blows my mind how laws try to pad the world. Things such as this and the light bulb laws and seat belt tickets are just violating our rights to live our own life as we see fit and making us pay a fine for our rights. I find it hard to believe anyone would vote for laws like these to be passed in a general poll. People are bubble wrapping the world when the answer is really just spreading better information, not limit our rights.
SmaryJerry
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2013
Only tools quote the dictionary. "Republic" as used in the Constitution is a very vague term. You attributed popular elections to it. That is not correct.
In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.

http://en.wikiped...Republic


Off-topic, but a reply to you both: debating definitions is silly as he said, you have to look at actions and intent. For note just look at North Korea, which is self-recognized as "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2013
Guy, it means "representative government".

Keep telling yourself that. Like I said, doublespeak-cult. Giving up defintions destroys your worldview.

Rygg is right except about the law being stupid.


LOL, YOU were the one objecting to my use of the term, ...then once I gave my reasoning you then claimed the term is vaguely defined in the constitution effecting rendering your original objection superfluous , then when I give definitions you object to definitions. Stop being silly.

Yes, Rygg is correct, but I never said that town did anything unconstitutional.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2013
debating definitions is silly

No, it is not.
We communicate ideas with words and if those words are not defined and if those definitions are not upheld, then words have NO meaning.
Science demands well defined terms and units of measure.
This is supposed to be a site about science, engineering, and technology all requiring precise definition of terms.
Hijacking the language is a classic tactic of the socialists for over 100 years when Roosevelt and Wilson used 'progressive' to define their expansion of state power. FDR hijacked 'liberal' to contrast his vision of socialism from Hoover's.
Now its muddled so I use socialism as described by Mises in 'Socialism' to mean govt control of property regardless of how that govt is chosen. Communism, fascism, crony capitalism are all forms of socialism as the govt controls your property instead of protecting YOUR property.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2013
Yes, Rygg is correct, but I never said that town did anything unconstitutional.

You said the ban was not republican and the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.

Off-topic, but a reply to you both: debating definitions is silly as he said, you have to look at actions and intent. For note just look at North Korea, which is self-recognized as "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

Or Jerry, it could be that "republic" is such a vague term that both the US and NK can claim it.

Communism, fascism, crony capitalism are all forms of socialism as the govt controls your property instead of protecting YOUR property.
Actually communism is the only one you listed that is a form of socialism. Crony capitalism would be a flawed version of the capitalist ideal, and fascism is another beast all together. In Constitution-speak, property means real-estate and even that has limits as per the 5th amendment. No rights are absolute. Socialism has property.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2013
debating definitions is silly

No, it is not.
We communicate ideas with words and if those words are not defined and if those definitions are not upheld, then words have NO meaning.


Swenson,

Again you pervert the truth.

In order for a definition to have meaning in terms of debate, it must be an AGREED UPON meaning, agreed upon by all parties in the debate.

This is exactly where you and your tribe of RepCon LibertaRandite Corporocrats consistently fail to engage honestly.

You insist upon employing the definition of terms that you define UNILATERALLY, and always to advantageously serve whatever claim or assertion you are attempting to advance.

This is why you rarely make any credible argument. You define all terms through the rectum-colored glasses of your ideology, as do your buddies, nonoUNme, et al.

Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2013
All the costs are accounted for in manufacturing a product. It is up to the end user to dispose of waste, for which he is taxed by the local government to do so.


Is that so, nonoUNme?

As I pointed out earlier:

And here Eikka hits upon the single most compelling reason for banning plastic-encased water(or, for that matter, any beverage or consumable): plastic is goddam POISON. And at every step of the way, emits harmful organic compounds into drink, food, cosmetics, water, air and any other parts of the environment with which it comes in contact.This without making any reference to the physical pollution refuse plastics create. South/North Pacific garbage gyres, anyone?


All the costs are accounted for, are they?

I don't see any accounting for the costs to treat reproductive, endocrine, neurological and various other tissue and organ pathologies that are associated with products that are packaged in plastics,

cont'd



Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2013
contd

...nor are there any national mandates upon recycling. which means that plastic waste ends up everywhere, and to a much greater extent than would be the case if recycling were universally required.

And thus, once again, we are faced with the FACT of for-profit induistry(ies) privatizing the accumulation of wealth, while SOCIALIZING the costs of that wealth generation, as the taxpayer picks up the tab for clean up of the physical environment and to pay for the healthcare costs madenecessary as a direct result of the poisons created and released as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of your freimarket capitalist wealth generation.

So tell me, nonoUNme --where the fuck do those costs appear upon your freimarket balance sheet?

Oh --that's right-- THEY DON'T.

You can continue to exist in your chronic, congenital state of denial about the very real, very lethal consequences of the operations of your goddam freimarket, but you can expect to be contradicted every time you try to foist that lie.

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2013
You insist upon employing the definition of terms that you define UNILATERALLY,

That's what the socialists have done, defined terms unilaterally for the past 100 years.
Fortunately people have been writing for longer than 100 years so there are reference points one may refer to.
Socialism is well defined as govt control of private property. Even the socialists here agree this is correct when they try to limit 'private property' to mean only 'means of production' because they feel better about trying to acquire power by any means.
Bastiat noted this in 1848 in The Law when he noted that when the law is perverted from protecting private property, the various socialist groups will fight to control the law so they may legally plunder and have the power to oppress.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2013
fascism is another beast all together.

It's so amusing to watch socialists try to argue they have nothing in common with fascists.
But the father of fascism, Mussolini was a socialist and said plainly fascism is socialism, national socialism. Even the socialist FDR admired Mussolini for a time.
Hayek noted it was so easy for Germans to accept fascism as they were already socialists.
Socialism is as socialism does: controlling private property instead of protecting private property.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2013
Sounds like the tactics used by many who post here:

"The left's goal is to shut down the political debate by decrying their opponents as victimizers. They label their opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, benighted, backwards bitter clingers. They liken them to Nazis, KKK members, terrorists. Then they cast them out like lepers from the political debate. Because who would bother debating a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a terrorist?"
http://www.breitb...New-Book
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2013
Wow, Nature is worried about politicizing science. Will wonders never cease?

"To prevent science from continuing its worrying slide towards politicization, here's a New Year's resolution for scientists, especially in the United States: gain the confidence of people and politicians across the political spectrum by demonstrating that science is bipartisan."
"In the current period of dire fiscal stress, one way to undermine this stable funding and bipartisan support would be to convince Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, that science is a Democratic special interest."

http://www.nature...-1.12119

We see the real reason for their concern, money.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2013
And then there is this:

"Science Has Always Been Driven by Money"
http://sciencenor...en-money

Maybe the 'progressive' scientists are really beginning to worry that their policies destroy wealth and limit the funds available for research?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2013
All the costs are accounted for in manufacturing a product. It is up to the end user to dispose of waste, for which he is taxed by the local government to do so.
Is that so [sir]? As I pointed out earlier:
... plastic is goddam POISON. And at every step of the way, emits harmful organic compounds into drink, food, cosmetics, water, air and any other parts of the environment with which it comes in contact.This without making any reference to the physical pollution refuse plastics create. South/North Pacific garbage gyres, anyone?


That is all activist potato-salad non-sense. Plastic is in reality, not a posion, and is perfectly harmless.

The FDA approves many kinds of plastic, for not only food, but also medical applications (even acetal which is toxic if burned). I thought you far left rely on government. Here we have government at work allowing plastic to be widely used. Would you rather the oil derivitive be burned rather than compounded into plastic?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2013
I notice all water bottles have a triangle with a number '1' in the center. What does that mean?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2013
Identifies the type of plastic for recycling. According to http://en.wikiped...on_code, that would be PET, which is used most commonly in bottles. Harmless.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2013
Identifies the type of plastic for recycling. According to http://en.wikiped...on_code, that would be PET, which is used most commonly in bottles. Harmless.


How can the 'progressives' believe the AGW hype but not professional chemists on plastic? The science is really settled on plastic is it not?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2013
Identifies the type of plastic for recycling. According to http://en.wikiped...on_code, that would be PET, which is used most commonly in bottles. Harmless.


Bullshit.

How can the 'progressives' believe the AGW hype but not professional chemists on plastic? The science is really settled on plastic is it not?


Double bullshit.

The pair of you are so severely and pathologically retarded that it is almost impossible to imagine how you can even remember to breathe.

Of course, we would all be the benefactors if you were to forget.

It is a real shame, in this instance, that evolutionary forces have made the Reptile Brain such a robust system for life-support function.



Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2013
Taliban, your above post is again devoid of content and just more vacous ad hominem attacks. At least mix some sense in with your insults, to keep it interesting, like I do. You must be a masochist to keep debating with me.

The FDA approves of the use of various plastics for use in food and medical applications.

The FDA is a part of the Government, the far lefts savior. If you're right about plastics being a poison, then it appears that the far lefts dream of a planned and engineered society is a false hope, as evidently, according to you, it can't even protect its citizens from "poison".
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2013
How can the 'progressives' believe the AGW hype but not professional chemists on plastic? The science is really settled on plastic is it not?


Yep, Caliban is what is called, a "Denier".

They deny, by continuing to support big gov and social engineering,... the historical catastrophes caused by attempted Planned Societies. They deny and/or don't even conduct studies on the failure of government institutions, both in effectiveness and efficiency. They deny unintended consequences of their ad-hoc rules, regulations, and bannings.

Caliban Denies the obvious logical inconsistency in a) maintaining that plastic is poison, but yet the government institutions, the FDA and EPA, both approve its use on a massive scale,... and b) his far left reliance on the government to 'scientifically' implement social engineering.

He denies that we start to die as soon as we are born, and that its about acceptable risk, not his religious utopian gaia fantasy.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2013
Cali can't defend his comments. What a surprise!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2013
Spot on!
"Those that self-identify as progressives, leftists, socialists or Marxists, have one overwhelming trait in common: they are narcissists who believe they are pre-ordained to rule the masses too ignorant to govern themselves.

Read more: http://www.americ...HTrXHJxN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2013
Meant to rate a five.

Even Caliban, if he wasn't an emotional liberal, would be reauired to choose acceptable risk and acknowledge imperfect circumstances,... in that the by-product of oil that goes into compounding plastic would have been burned for energy so is better in the form of plastic,... versus the environmental and supposed health impact. Better cover you bed with plastic tonight, Cali.

It's not hard to point out logical fallacies of the left,.. they are 80% reactionary and emotional .
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2013
Meant to rate a five.

Even Caliban, if he wasn't an emotional liberal, would be reauired to choose acceptable risk and acknowledge imperfect circumstances,... in that the by-product of oil that goes into compounding plastic would have been burned for energy so is better in the form of plastic,... versus the environmental and supposed health impact. Better cover you bed with plastic tonight, Cali.

It's not hard to point out logical fallacies of the left,.. they are 80% reactionary and emotional .


As I said, so severely and pathologically retarded that it is nearly inconceivable that you two imbeciles can even remeber to breathe.

Which is a double detriment for the rest of us, since every breath is returned to the environment in the form of a lie.

SmaryJerry
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2013
It's been pretty fun reading all of your comments, and even though I just posted yesterday in the middle of this cataclysmic comment section I think everyone could calm down and be agreeable, even when the other person is not.

Calipan - Sure, corporations are profiting from a "public resource." But they are profitting because it is something the people want. We could stop them profiting if we just informed people what they are doing. Their profits would shrink and the environemntal impact would shrink. All this without taking away any rights.

Noumenon - You have some good points but they get lost in egocentric compulsion to prove someone wrong. If you could communicate more politely you might not run into so much opposition.

ryggesogn2 - you seem to simply disagree with everything anyone says and may be having a psycotic break. I still don't know where you stand after your 50 comments. Please take a bubble bath and stop worrying about the tiniest details.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2013
As I said, so severely and pathologically retarded that it is nearly inconceivable that you two imbeciles can even remeber to breathe.- Caliban


Polite to this guy?!!
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2013
As I said, so severely and pathologically retarded that it is nearly inconceivable that you two imbeciles can even remeber to breathe.- Caliban


Polite to this guy?!!


Right back to you, nonoUNme.

You have managed to un-earn any of the politeness which could normally be expected as a part of civil discourse.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2013
But they are profitting because it is something the people want. We could stop them profiting if we just informed people what they are doing. Their profits would shrink and the environemntal impact would shrink.


If there is no profit there is no incentive to keep an environment safe and clean. Ever hear of 'the tragedy of the commons'?
Profit has motivated bottlers to make bottles with less plastic. Have you noticed?
Why not use aseptic boxes, like the Tetra boxes? Are they more 'friendly'?
If the people of Concord wanted to drink water from their taps why aren't they? Maybe they don't trust their govt to provide clean water when it smells of chlorine and has been fluoridated and who knows what else?
The 84 year old busy body trusts the govt for safe water but many here don't trust the govt to certify plastic bottles are safe?
ScooterG
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2013
Landfills are a gold mine of btu's, precious metals, etc. We know where landfills are located, how deep, how long, how wide, and who owns them.

Some see landfills as a liability - I see them as an opportunity.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2013
If there is no profit there is no incentive to keep an environment safe and clean. Ever hear of 'the tragedy of the commons'?


Just when I thought you had reached the absolute ultimate level of ignorant stupidiosity, you say something still more retarded.

Have a look at the definition of the term, Swenson:

http://www.invest...HYsFDiVW

Profit has motivated bottlers to make bottles with less plastic. Have you noticed?


Well, those goddam freimarketeers sure as hell can't put one past you, now can they, Swenson?

Did you notice that the lust for profit was the SOLE driver for minimal material in the construction of plastic containers? NOT CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Less material used per unit in manufacture=MORE PROFIT.


Stand by, folks --let's see if Swenson can break the stupid-barrier yet again...

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
A company exists to make profit for its investors, while the gov EPA exists to protect the environment,... they BOTH approve of plastic bottles.

"Source reduction is the process of reducing the amount of waste that is generated. The plastics industry has successfully been able to reduce the amount of material needed to make packaging for consumer products. Plastic packaging is generally more lightweight than its alternatives, such as glass, paper, or metal. Lighter weight materials require less fuel to transport and result in less material in the waste stream." - Environmental Protection Agency

Caliban, you're really not in a position to call others retarded, when you comically and naively expect companies, to put themselves at a disadvantage by subjecting themselves to the whim of exaggerated environmental concerns, EVEN THOUGH, the Environmental Protection Agency approves of the use of plastic bottles.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
Less material used per unit in manufacture=MORE PROFIT.

How horrible!
Business can PROFIT from saving the environment.
Looks like poverty and despair (power) are more important to the socialist than the environment.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2013
"Lighter weight materials require less fuel to transport" and results in less cost for companies to transport and so results in more yummy, juicy profit. Another benefit from profit motive,... which the EPA had nothing to do with.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2013
Business can PROFIT from saving the environment.

To bring this back to the point: This prohibits SINGLE SERVING SIZES in plastic bottles, only. Not plastic bottles.
(Also note that putting single serving sizes in glass bottles would be equally idiotic)
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2013
Business can PROFIT from saving the environment.

To bring this back to the point: This prohibits SINGLE SERVING SIZES in plastic bottles, only. Not plastic bottles.
(Also note that putting single serving sizes in glass bottles would be equally idiotic)

First they came for the single serving bottles, then they came for....

No wonder Germany fell for fascism.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2013
"Lighter weight materials require less fuel to transport" and results in less cost for companies to transport and so results in more yummy, juicy profit. Another benefit from profit motive,... which the EPA had nothing to do with.


--nonoUNme

How horrible!Business can PROFIT from saving the environment.Looks like poverty and despair (power) are more important to the socialist than the environment.


--swenson.

I see that you two retards get at least THAT much of the picture.
So, you were able to wrap your damaged little brains around the concept that plastic bottles are in such widespread use not because of any environmental or health benignity, but rather because their use makes possible much greater profit.

If bottled beverage producers and/or their suppliers were interested in Health and the environment, then they would spend some of their money lobbying for a NATIONAL return deposit requirement, and trying to reduce the toxicity profile of product and packaging.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2013
Caliban, you're really not in a position to call others retarded, when you comically and naively expect companies[...]whim of exaggerated environmental concerns, EVEN THOUGH, the Environmental Protection Agency approves of the use of plastic bottles.


nonoUNme,

You just don't seem to be able to prevent yourself from treading in your own stupid -when you aren't wallowing in it, that is-
and have here once again demonstrated the profound and severe damage to your brain -no doubt caused by drinking too much of that RepCon/LibertaRandite milk as a wee tater- that limits your ability to "think" to only a single dimension.

The DOT, NTSB, OSHA, and States' Department of Agriculture(to name but a few) also, and in like manner, AND FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS permit the production, distribution and dispensing of gasoline as a motorvehicle fuel, even though it is extremely toxic, extremely flammable and extremely explosive.

So, are they saying it presents no health/enviro hazard?

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2013
Read the following a few times so that you might understand it....

They are saying it poses an Acceptable Risk to health and environment,... as I pointed out above.

As an apparent anti-capitalist and socialist, you must see the logical inconsistency is relying upon the manufacturers to do the job of regulatory government.

The free market manufacterers have an obligation to its investors, so in fact cannot act like a naive activist. In this case, the EPA thinks what the manufacterers have done wrt reducing weight is a good thing and as I quoted, commended them for doing so.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2013
You would retain more dignity, if you just capitulated already and admited you were roundly defeated by superior argument and apologize for being a pseudo-socialists bed-wetting liberal.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2013
The free market manufacterers have an obligation to its investors,

By keeping their customers. Killing or injuring customers is a sure way to bankruptcy, unless, of course, the company is protected from such liability by the govt.
A few months ago it was the Canadian importer and manufacturer of dog food that discovered contaminated product from China and immediately took action to recall limit the damage. No govt inspector in China or Canada discovered the contamination.
In response the govt of China executed the officials responsible and hired the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) a non-govt organization to establish a testing/certification program to prevent recurrence.
And you can be assured ALL businesses that import products from China will be testing, or hiring a company like NSF to test imports from just about everywhere.
What did Tylenol do when their product was sabotaged? Tylenol is still being sold.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2013
You would retain more dignity, if you just capitulated already and admited you were roundly defeated by superior argument and apologize for being a pseudo-socialists bed-wetting liberal.


I see...

In your world, better Red than dead, eh?

Actually, I know that the severity and profundity of your retardation makes you incapable of making such distinctions, much less being able to understand the finer points of debate.

The only thing being wet around here is your head. Your Masters laugh as they shake.

Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2013
The free market manufacterers have an obligation to its investors,

By keeping their customers. Killing or injuring customers is a sure way to bankruptcy, unless, of course, the company is protected from such liability by the govt.


As, indeed, they are, through plea bargain, non-liability, private settlement or Reorganization.

These tactics are used over and over again, moron.

People are killed every day because of lethal products or the cumulative poisoning resulting from the operations of freimarket capitalism.

The example you provide of a company "discovering' and self-reporting a product defect is the rarest of rare instances, and most likely --although I could be wrong in this case-- was merely a preemptive effort upon the part of your unnamed Good Canadian Corporate Citizen to avoid what they realized was sure to be a massive lawsuit and investigation which would likely have resulted in actual bankruptcy and liquidation in addition to Civil action.

Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2013
A few months ago it was the Canadian importer and manufacturer of dog food that discovered contaminated product from China and immediately took action to recall limit the damage. No govt inspector in China or Canada discovered the contamination.


Are we to fall down upon our knees, then, and thank our Corporate Benefactors for merely following GMP? for -in other words- just doing their job?

I notice that you don't use FoMoCo, or Toyota, or BP, or Lilly, or Glaxo-SmithKline, or EXXon Mobile, or Dow, or even the producers of the melamine that was used in the manufacture of that dog food as examples of Good Corporate Citizenry. Why is that?

Is your own bullshit starting to smell so ferociously that not even you can stand it?

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2013
People are killed every day because of lethal products or the cumulative poisoning resulting from the operations of freimarket capitalism.


Don't forget about the millions who died from the govt ban on DDT or those who where killed in cars made unsafe by CAFE laws.

BTW, how many of the products you are complaining about are approved by some govt agency?
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2013
Or those killed by lax gun regulations. Don't forget them!
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2013
People are killed every day because of lethal products or the cumulative poisoning resulting from the operations of freimarket capitalism.


Don't forget about the millions who died from the govt ban on DDT or those who where killed in cars made unsafe by CAFE laws.


OK, Swenson -show us the totals of US citizens who died as a result of CAFE implementation. I want numbers published in a peer-reviewed science journal, say Nature, or the New England Journal of Medicine, or a source of comparable standards.

When you are finished not being able to produce those numbers, try to locate totals for the number of US citiizens killed by the banning of DDT use in the US same citation standards.

And when you are finished being unable to produce those numbers,

STFU.

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2013
"Committee on the Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, National Research Council. "4 Impact of a More Fuel-Efficient Fleet." Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002. p.71-72."
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2013
"n 2010, malaria caused an estimated 660 000 deaths (with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000), mostly among African children. "
"Indoor residual spraying (IRS) with insecticides is a powerful way to rapidly reduce malaria transmission. Its full potential is realized when at least 80% of houses in targeted areas are sprayed. Indoor spraying is effective for 3–6 months, depending on the insecticide used and the type of surface on which it is sprayed. DDT can be effective for 9–12 months in some cases."
http://www.who.in...dex.html
"CURTIS, C. F. (1994), Should DDT continue to be recommended for malaria vector control?. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 8: 107–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1994.tb00147.x"
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2013
"n 2010, malaria caused an estimated 660 000 deaths (with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000), mostly among African children. "
"Indoor residual spraying (IRS) with insecticides is a powerful way to rapidly reduce malaria transmission. Its full potential is realized when at least 80% of houses in targeted areas are sprayed. Indoor spraying is effective for 3–6 months, depending on the insecticide used and the type of surface on which it is sprayed. DDT can be effective for 9–12 months in some cases."
http://www.who.in...dex.html
"CURTIS, C. F. (1994), Should DDT continue to be recommended for malaria vector control?. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 8: 107–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1994.tb00147.x"


Hey, jackass, The US didn't --and CAN'T-- ban DDT any where in the world other than than the US. And DDT is widely used to combat malaria the world over.