Republicans fight to hide chemical industry is killing Americans

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberal long for the day when every single activity is monitored and controlled by Obama and his Federal Government. Life is too hard, full of too many tough choices for a Libe, er I mean Progressive to handle on his own, he need to put his trust in the kind, loving hands of Big Brother

You need to look up Liberalism and read what it actually is, you moronic partisan hack.

Sorry, I meant to say Progressives instead of Liberals

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's more formaldehyde and it's warming, ergo, formaldehyde causes Global Warming

 

[Samson]

There's more formaldehyde and it's warming, ergo, formaldehyde causes Global Warming

Interestingly enough, American's Lifespans have lengthened with increasing Formaldehyde production.

 

[gslack]

Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

Several NCI surveys of professionals who are potentially exposed to formaldehyde in their work, such as anatomists and embalmers, have suggested that these individuals are at an increased risk of leukemia and brain cancer compared with the general population. However, specific work practices and exposures were not characterized in these studies. An NCI case-control study among funeral industry workers that characterized exposure to formaldehyde also found an association between increasing formaldehyde exposure and mortality from myeloid leukemia (3). For this study, carried out among funeral industry workers who had died between 1960 and 1986, researchers compared those who had died from hematopoietic and lymphatic cancers and brain tumors with those who died from other causes. (Hematopoietic or hematologic cancers such as leukemia develop in the blood or bone marrow. Lymphatic cancers develop in the tissues and organs that produce, store, and carry white blood cells that fight infections and other diseases.) This analysis showed that those who had performed the most embalming and those with the highest estimated formaldehyde exposure had the greatest risk of myeloid leukemia. There was no association with other cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems or with brain cancer.

I love picking the BS out of stuff like this..... *rolls up sleeves*

In the article posted and linked to by oldsocks we may notice some patterns.... Like use of words that denote a possibility instead of an inevitable outcome. Also words like "association", "possible", and a few others that do not denote a statement of fact, but rather a possible outcome. Pay particular attention to the bolded and underlined parts... Get the picture yet?

Thats how PR reps do their job, and how the way you say things or imply them, means more to the public than what you really say. Whenever you see so many phrases and words which denote a possibility rather than a statement of fact, you can rest assured the article was designed to give an impression and not impart fact. ANd that is the difference between truth and BS, or PR and fact.

When you really read the article objectively, and leave all preconceptions, emotional leanings, and political BS at the door, you get an entirely different version of it.

What the just told you was they think based on their survey and control case study, that prolonged exposure to formaldehyde MAY increase the risks of SOME types of cancers while not effecting SOME OTHER TYPES OF CANCER...

Yeah no grand factual statement, no declaration of undeniable truth, just a maybe, a chance, and a probability..... Wow thanks guys really....

This is exactly how people are misled every day. The article isn't lying, but its misleading and is designed to appeal to emotion rather than logic and reason. THey color what they think as if its what they know, and do so with something like cancer to drive it home.

Its called fear-driven manipulation and its an old trick from the days of Bernays and the birth of PR and modern advertising. You throw this in on a public that is dedicated to the boob tube and reliant on their perceived betters to tell them everything they need to know, and you get a new rash of legislation that will serve no purpose other than furthering an agenda.

And lets not forget most people get their news on the go and in between trips to work, school, soccer practice, and whatever else. A great many of these people are on dumming down meds and or hopped up on various other stimulants or depressants all of which keep the mind clouded and the system in a rush or near a sleep state.

This is classic BS PR work people, better learn to spot it...

 

[momonkey]

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has pushed the EPA to slow its process of updating its 20-year-old health assessment of formaldehyde. After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of his state's residents said they suffered respiratory problems after being housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. (Left: A child looks out of a FEMA trailer in Port Sulphur, La. May 2008 photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.

As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

"Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make," said James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Human Services.
---
Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According to Talking Points Memo, his election campaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found that Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions from other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in formaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is Charles Grizzle, a top-paid lobbyist for the Formaldehyde Council, an industry trade group that had long sought a National Academy review of the chemical.

Sen. James Inhofe persuaded the EPA to delay its formaldehyde risk assessment in 2004. (Getty Images file photo)

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk assessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded the EPA to delay it, even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more "robust set of findings" from the institute.

Koch Industries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors, gave Inhofe $6,000 that year. That same year Koch bought two pulp mills from Georgia-Pacific, a major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.



Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Wow, that's great!

...erh, not the formaldehyde thing.

Who cares about that?

I mean one Senator can just go to the EPA and they do whatever he wants.

That's amazing!

And the Republicans aren't even in power. Actually, Republicans can't even use the rest room without raising their hand first.

Sure is fun to watch the growing desperation of the left.

 

[Bfgrn]

A bit of a problem with that senator.... Kind of like the problem with Al Gore and his Occidental Petroleum contract... Or his stock in CCX the carbon credit trade market, and their partnerships with 5 other carbon trade markets all over the world... Di you know Maurice Strong was on the board of CCX? you know him he's a bigtime liberal from the UN Environmental Program. Former head of them in fact. until that messy Oil for Food fiasco in Iraq and he had to resign. Yeah now he lives in china and is helping them get their carbon trade market up and running. What a guy!

Fine example of socialistic principles and ethics.... Why I bet we can color all the liberals with that brush can't we... yeah you just did that to republicans so why not...

So I say that all liberal democrats who support AGW cap and trade legislation are just like Al Gore and Maurice Strong.... Sounds reasonable wouldn't you agree?

What a HUGE pile of typical right wing Faux Snooze pea brain garbage. Al Gore's FATHER represented Occidental as an attorney after he lost election to the Senate. When Sr died the shares he owned passed to the estate. Al Gore Jr. never exercised control over the shares and they were sold when the estate closed.

Also, you have other HUGE problems. First, Al Gore is not a US Senator, he is a private citizen. Second, it's ironic free enterprise and entrepreneurship are suddenly an evil when a liberal is involved. Al Gore is investing in green energy and industries that will clean up our environment. Sounds like smart and responsible investing to me. Better go back and study up on more Alex Jones conspiracy garbage.

There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.

Educate yourself pea brain...

League of Conservation Voters

2009 National Environmental Scorecard - http://lcv-ftp.org/scorecard09/highslows.pdf

BS!
CorpWatch*:*Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate

by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
August 29th, 2000

RELATED STORY

Integrity in the Balance
Bill Mesler reports on Gore's broken promises on a toxic Ohio waste incinerator.

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will "destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Coelho served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.

Nowhere is Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental. While on the one hand talking tough about his "big oil" opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance," the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.

Notice the site its from? its corpwatch... yeah they investigate corporate fraud and malfeasance. I don't believe they would have a reason to make this up.... I didn't go to the wall street Journal or any other right wing source so don't even try that crying tactic....

He is a private citizen NOW! Not when he did all this investing, and not when he set up CCX. And especially not when he tried to push for environmental legislation and policies which would have made him wealthy....

Who said anything about Alex Jones but you? Look at my link dipshit, its not to a blog, or a conspiracy site. its to corpwatch freaking azzhole, calling other people pea brain when you can sit there and dismiss that POS no matter what he does.... Self-righteous, pompous azzhole, wake-up your people are crooks too. Your side is no better than the other and the sooner your daydreaming, true-believing, ignorant, gullible azz realizes it the better of the whole country will be...

Don't tell me to go learn something you half-wit. Freaking daydreamer...

P.S. Why did you post two links that are completely unrelated to your claims? You trying to BS people or what? The two links you posted one to a PDF file of a so-called environmental scorecard, and the other was to some green blog about conservation voters. Neither one had anything to do with Al Gore or his Occidental investment.... Really lame...

My 'claim'...'There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.'

Your claim...'Your side is no better than the other'

WOW...you would have been better off taking up the right wing mantra that environmentalists interfere with 'free' enterprise (in reality, heavily subsidized corporate socialism).

NO ONE on the right is even serious about our environment. They feed you pea brains a corporate funded propaganda PR campaign that portrays environmentalists as some lunatic fascist group. They cite junk science from an echo chamber of over 40 'science' sources built and funded by the very corporations that rape our planet. Basically the same players that tried to undermine tobacco legislation are now trying to undermine climate legislation.

Your portrayal of the League of Conservation Voters 'so-called environmental scorecard, and the other was to some green blog' is a shining example of the right wing PR propaganda 'language'

Anyone familiar with environmental issues is aware that the League of Conservation Voters is a respected government watchdog on environmental issues and legislation. Their National Environmental Scorecard has rated every legislator in Congress since 1970.

The links I provided are from the same site. The League of Conservation Voters' main site, and their 2009 environmental scorecard FROM their site (pdf).

"I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future."

Remarks at Amherst College
President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

 

[Si modo]

There was actually a right winger on another board that posted that a little mercury won't hurt anyone.
And bragged how he had played with it and such.
Kinda explains why he is a rightwingnut.

As the vapors of elemental Hg and organomercury compounds will cause severe neurological damage, he is right.

 

[gslack]

What a HUGE pile of typical right wing Faux Snooze pea brain garbage. Al Gore's FATHER represented Occidental as an attorney after he lost election to the Senate. When Sr died the shares he owned passed to the estate. Al Gore Jr. never exercised control over the shares and they were sold when the estate closed.

Also, you have other HUGE problems. First, Al Gore is not a US Senator, he is a private citizen. Second, it's ironic free enterprise and entrepreneurship are suddenly an evil when a liberal is involved. Al Gore is investing in green energy and industries that will clean up our environment. Sounds like smart and responsible investing to me. Better go back and study up on more Alex Jones conspiracy garbage.

There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.

Educate yourself pea brain...

League of Conservation Voters

2009 National Environmental Scorecard - http://lcv-ftp.org/scorecard09/highslows.pdf

BS!
CorpWatch*:*Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate

by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
August 29th, 2000

RELATED STORY

Integrity in the Balance
Bill Mesler reports on Gore's broken promises on a toxic Ohio waste incinerator.

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will "destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Coelho served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.

Nowhere is Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental. While on the one hand talking tough about his "big oil" opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance," the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.

Notice the site its from? its corpwatch... yeah they investigate corporate fraud and malfeasance. I don't believe they would have a reason to make this up.... I didn't go to the wall street Journal or any other right wing source so don't even try that crying tactic....

He is a private citizen NOW! Not when he did all this investing, and not when he set up CCX. And especially not when he tried to push for environmental legislation and policies which would have made him wealthy....

Who said anything about Alex Jones but you? Look at my link dipshit, its not to a blog, or a conspiracy site. its to corpwatch freaking azzhole, calling other people pea brain when you can sit there and dismiss that POS no matter what he does.... Self-righteous, pompous azzhole, wake-up your people are crooks too. Your side is no better than the other and the sooner your daydreaming, true-believing, ignorant, gullible azz realizes it the better of the whole country will be...

Don't tell me to go learn something you half-wit. Freaking daydreamer...

P.S. Why did you post two links that are completely unrelated to your claims? You trying to BS people or what? The two links you posted one to a PDF file of a so-called environmental scorecard, and the other was to some green blog about conservation voters. Neither one had anything to do with Al Gore or his Occidental investment.... Really lame...

My 'claim'...'There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.'

Your claim...'Your side is no better than the other'

WOW...you would have been better off taking up the right wing mantra that environmentalists interfere with 'free' enterprise (in reality, heavily subsidized corporate socialism).

NO ONE on the right is even serious about our environment. They feed you pea brains a corporate funded propaganda PR campaign that portrays environmentalists as some lunatic fascist group. They cite junk science from an echo chamber of over 40 'science' sources built and funded by the very corporations that rape our planet. Basically the same players that tried to undermine tobacco legislation are now trying to undermine climate legislation.

Your portrayal of the League of Conservation Voters 'so-called environmental scorecard, and the other was to some green blog' is a shining example of the right wing PR propaganda 'language'

Anyone familiar with environmental issues is aware that the League of Conservation Voters is a respected government watchdog on environmental issues and legislation. Their National Environmental Scorecard has rated every legislator in Congress since 1970.

The links I provided are from the same site. The League of Conservation Voters' main site, and their 2009 environmental scorecard FROM their site (pdf).

"I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future."

Remarks at Amherst College
President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

NO dude your claim was about my being wrong about Al Gore and you threw your little comment on the bottom. Here is the link....http://www.usmessageboard.com/2230391-post28.html

And here is what you said about my post.

What a HUGE pile of typical right wing Faux Snooze pea brain garbage. Al Gore's FATHER represented Occidental as an attorney after he lost election to the Senate. When Sr died the shares he owned passed to the estate. Al Gore Jr. never exercised control over the shares and they were sold when the estate closed.

Also, you have other HUGE problems. First, Al Gore is not a US Senator, he is a private citizen. Second, it's ironic free enterprise and entrepreneurship are suddenly an evil when a liberal is involved. Al Gore is investing in green energy and industries that will clean up our environment. Sounds like smart and responsible investing to me. Better go back and study up on more Alex Jones conspiracy garbage.

There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.

Educate yourself pea brain...

League of Conservation Voters

2009 National Environmental Scorecard - http://lcv-ftp.org/scorecard09/highslows.pdf

And as to your links, they are biased in nature. They have a vested interest in all of this so they are not a reliable source in this matter no matter how respectable they may be. They still rely on and push for a certain agenda and that makes them bias.

You seem to think that "bias" only applies to others or the opposition, and not your side. Which is a complete fallacy as well as naive. Hence the point I made about you thinking your side better, more correct, the good guys, or whatever for any reasons. THey are no better and not "the good guys" by a long shot.

Also, I don't have real side. I am independent. I think both sides are full of it, I just happen to think that tricking people with placating nonsense (the liberal/progressive/green party way) is morally and ethically reprehensible. And despise those who believe themselves or their side holier-than-thou when in reality they are just as bad if not worse.

And you still haven't commented on The Al Gore excuses you tried to make.... Nothing to say on that?

 

[Samson]

There was actually a right winger on another board that posted that a little mercury won't hurt anyone.
And bragged how he had played with it and such.
Kinda explains why he is a rightwingnut.

As the vapors of elemental Hg and organomercury compounds will cause severe neurological damage, he is right.

Don't Eat 10 cans/day of Tuna?

No, its much easier to indicite an entire industry, and send manufacturing to China.

 

[Si modo]

There was actually a right winger on another board that posted that a little mercury won't hurt anyone.
And bragged how he had played with it and such.
Kinda explains why he is a rightwingnut.

As the vapors of elemental Hg and organomercury compounds will cause severe neurological damage, he is right.

Don't Eat 10 cans/day of Tuna?

No, its much easier to indicite an entire industry, and send manufacturing to China.

The mercury that will hurt you in seafood (and the fatty Great Lakes fish, especially - higher solute concentration in Great Lakes and organomercury compounds are fat soluble) are organomercury compounds.

 

[gslack]

As the vapors of elemental Hg and organomercury compounds will cause severe neurological damage, he is right.

Don't Eat 10 cans/day of Tuna?

No, its much easier to indicite an entire industry, and send manufacturing to China.

The mercury that will hurt you in seafood (and the fatty Great Lakes fish, especially - higher solute concentration in Great Lakes and organomercury compounds are fat soluble) are organomercury compounds.

Ya know the weird part in all of that? Fatty fish are full of the B-complex vitamins and minerals which promote central nervous and brain functions. And mercury effects those same functions...

 

[Bfgrn]

BS!
CorpWatch*:*Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate


Notice the site its from? its corpwatch... yeah they investigate corporate fraud and malfeasance. I don't believe they would have a reason to make this up.... I didn't go to the wall street Journal or any other right wing source so don't even try that crying tactic....

He is a private citizen NOW! Not when he did all this investing, and not when he set up CCX. And especially not when he tried to push for environmental legislation and policies which would have made him wealthy....

Who said anything about Alex Jones but you? Look at my link dipshit, its not to a blog, or a conspiracy site. its to corpwatch freaking azzhole, calling other people pea brain when you can sit there and dismiss that POS no matter what he does.... Self-righteous, pompous azzhole, wake-up your people are crooks too. Your side is no better than the other and the sooner your daydreaming, true-believing, ignorant, gullible azz realizes it the better of the whole country will be...

Don't tell me to go learn something you half-wit. Freaking daydreamer...

P.S. Why did you post two links that are completely unrelated to your claims? You trying to BS people or what? The two links you posted one to a PDF file of a so-called environmental scorecard, and the other was to some green blog about conservation voters. Neither one had anything to do with Al Gore or his Occidental investment.... Really lame...

My 'claim'...'There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.'

Your claim...'Your side is no better than the other'

WOW...you would have been better off taking up the right wing mantra that environmentalists interfere with 'free' enterprise (in reality, heavily subsidized corporate socialism).

NO ONE on the right is even serious about our environment. They feed you pea brains a corporate funded propaganda PR campaign that portrays environmentalists as some lunatic fascist group. They cite junk science from an echo chamber of over 40 'science' sources built and funded by the very corporations that rape our planet. Basically the same players that tried to undermine tobacco legislation are now trying to undermine climate legislation.

Your portrayal of the League of Conservation Voters 'so-called environmental scorecard, and the other was to some green blog' is a shining example of the right wing PR propaganda 'language'

Anyone familiar with environmental issues is aware that the League of Conservation Voters is a respected government watchdog on environmental issues and legislation. Their National Environmental Scorecard has rated every legislator in Congress since 1970.

The links I provided are from the same site. The League of Conservation Voters' main site, and their 2009 environmental scorecard FROM their site (pdf).

"I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future."

Remarks at Amherst College
President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

NO dude your claim was about my being wrong about Al Gore and you threw your little comment on the bottom. Here is the link....http://www.usmessageboard.com/2230391-post28.html

And here is what you said about my post.

What a HUGE pile of typical right wing Faux Snooze pea brain garbage. Al Gore's FATHER represented Occidental as an attorney after he lost election to the Senate. When Sr died the shares he owned passed to the estate. Al Gore Jr. never exercised control over the shares and they were sold when the estate closed.

Also, you have other HUGE problems. First, Al Gore is not a US Senator, he is a private citizen. Second, it's ironic free enterprise and entrepreneurship are suddenly an evil when a liberal is involved. Al Gore is investing in green energy and industries that will clean up our environment. Sounds like smart and responsible investing to me. Better go back and study up on more Alex Jones conspiracy garbage.

There is no bigger difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in Congress than environmental issues.

Educate yourself pea brain...

League of Conservation Voters

2009 National Environmental Scorecard - http://lcv-ftp.org/scorecard09/highslows.pdf

And as to your links, they are biased in nature. They have a vested interest in all of this so they are not a reliable source in this matter no matter how respectable they may be. They still rely on and push for a certain agenda and that makes them bias.

You seem to think that "bias" only applies to others or the opposition, and not your side. Which is a complete fallacy as well as naive. Hence the point I made about you thinking your side better, more correct, the good guys, or whatever for any reasons. THey are no better and not "the good guys" by a long shot.

Also, I don't have real side. I am independent. I think both sides are full of it, I just happen to think that tricking people with placating nonsense (the liberal/progressive/green party way) is morally and ethically reprehensible. And despise those who believe themselves or their side holier-than-thou when in reality they are just as bad if not worse.

And you still haven't commented on The Al Gore excuses you tried to make.... Nothing to say on that?

I admit I have a 'bias', it's a very strong one and it's one I will defend until my last breath. It was taught to me as a child. It's called morality, knowing right from wrong and always choosing human capital over material capital; property and possessions. It is the same bias Jesus Christ had.

It is not nonsense or tricking when human beings are damaged or their life is extinguished. It is WRONG, immoral and criminal. It is as simple and clear as Luke stated in the Bible. You can call it an agenda, a bias, naive or self righteous.

Luke 16:13-15

[13] No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money)

[14] The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

[15] He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think we should take CA and fence in the borders with OR, NV and AZ but leave open the Southern Border, let the last 2 or 3 Conservatives leave and tell all the Liberals to migrate there.

It will be a Liberal Mecca.

The government will tell everyone what to eat, what to drink, what work they should avoid and we will finally be a free and happy country again.

 

[gslack]

I admit I have a 'bias', it's a very strong one and it's one I will defend until my last breath. It was taught to me as a child. It's called morality, knowing right from wrong and always choosing human capital over material capital; property and possessions. It is the same bias Jesus Christ had.

It is not nonsense or tricking when human beings are damaged or their life is extinguished. It is WRONG, immoral and criminal. It is as simple and clear as Luke stated in the Bible. You can call it an agenda, a bias, naive or self righteous.

Luke 16:13-15

[13] No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money)

[14] The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

[15] He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

And we still don't see any defense of your excuses for Al Gore.... Okay so I guess the higher morality you speak of only applies when it suits you... Fair enough...

Lets discuss your convenient morality shall we?

You made a claim regarding a senator opposing or fighting against legislation regarding formaldehyde. You even made wide and sweeping claims regarding that senators moral and ethical behavior on the matter. Completely ignoring the fact he is but ONE senator, and any senator could go and force the issue if they so chose to do so. Any senator be they democrat or republican can push the issue. But none of them have, yet your article likes to point out one republican senator and point the finger like its all him alone. That is a PR snowjob and that is immoral and unethical.

I pointed out the problems and practices with Al Gore when he was a senator and as Vice-President regarding environmental policies versus his direct vested financial interest in any such policies made. The reason was to point out that even IF the article is accurate and the senator was helping the Formaldehyde industry based on his personal financial gain, Al Gore from your side was doing the same thing. And showing the fallacy in believing one side more ethical or morally upright than the other. This would be a big problem with a person of a real moral and ethical backbone...

You then made an excuse to defend the practices of Al Gore. I gave verifiable evidence showing those excuses to be bogus. And your response was to ignore it and try to change the subject or scope of the debate into; first, a debate over right-wing environmental support or lack of it, and second (now) a debate over morality and or ethics.

So in reality all you have done is try and claim some moral high-ground based on a complete and total fallacy. And you try to quote scripture and give little anecdotes to back it up, all the while ignoring the complete lack of any real ethical or moral fiber in the side you choose.

Please spare me the scripture citing, and high talk of morality and ethics or right and wrong. Just because they tell you they are the good guys and the others the bad guys, doesn't make it true. And especially if they act in a manner so opposite of such a claim.

 

[Si modo]

Don't Eat 10 cans/day of Tuna?

No, its much easier to indicite an entire industry, and send manufacturing to China.

The mercury that will hurt you in seafood (and the fatty Great Lakes fish, especially - higher solute concentration in Great Lakes and organomercury compounds are fat soluble) are organomercury compounds.

Ya know the weird part in all of that? Fatty fish are full of the B-complex vitamins and minerals which promote central nervous and brain functions. And mercury effects those same functions...

It's a quandary.

 

[gslack]

The mercury that will hurt you in seafood (and the fatty Great Lakes fish, especially - higher solute concentration in Great Lakes and organomercury compounds are fat soluble) are organomercury compounds.

Ya know the weird part in all of that? Fatty fish are full of the B-complex vitamins and minerals which promote central nervous and brain functions. And mercury effects those same functions...

It's a quandary.

Yeah strange little things like that make me wonder how many other interesting similar relationships are being ignored or dismissed so pharmaceutical companies can give us a better erection.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your problem gslack. I have no need of such chemicals.

 

[Old Rocks]

The mercury that will hurt you in seafood (and the fatty Great Lakes fish, especially - higher solute concentration in Great Lakes and organomercury compounds are fat soluble) are organomercury compounds.

Ya know the weird part in all of that? Fatty fish are full of the B-complex vitamins and minerals which promote central nervous and brain functions. And mercury effects those same functions...

It's a quandary.

Primary source of mercury in our environment at present is the burning of coal, processing of metals, and volcanos. Two of those factors we can do something about.

 

[gslack]

Your problem gslack. I have no need of such chemicals.

And once again we see the self-proclaimed man about the science, missing the entire point... Nice work oldsocks, way to show your stupidity.... Again...

And BTW, stop fantasizing about my manhood.... its creepy.

 

[gslack]

Ya know the weird part in all of that? Fatty fish are full of the B-complex vitamins and minerals which promote central nervous and brain functions. And mercury effects those same functions...

It's a quandary.

Primary source of mercury in our environment at present is the burning of coal, processing of metals, and volcanos. Two of those factors we can do something about.

So we can stop the world from burning coal (the most abundant, cheapest and widely used fuel source), and stop the processing of metals (used in everything from computers to houses all over the world)....

And replace them with what exactly? Solar power? a 10-17% conversion rate at best and limited by the weather and sunlight as well as complications regarding energy storage. maybe wind power? Limited by available winds, EPA regulations and environmental concerns as well as safety issues. How about Hydrodynamic? Limited by availability of enough flowing water, building dams and facilities to harness it being dangerous to the local eco-systems, and the same types of EPA and environmental concerns. Okay then Nuclear? Dangerous, at best and possibly catastrophic if something went wrong, toxic nuclear waste and the trouble of getting rid of it, the threat to local eco-systems and water supply limitations. And the simple fact coal is the most abundant and cheapest, easily accessible fuel we have right now. And in most third world countries the only source they can afford or have the ability to use.

So coal has to stay for now.... What about metal processing?

Well we could use more plastics? Plastics which use dangerous chemicals in their processing, including those that can only be gotten from oil refining. Which again is like coal a fossil fuel. How about composites and carbon fiber products? Expensive even in the limited applications used today, also requires the use of dangerous chemicals and processes in the manufacture, often "classified" or trade secrets still and the process not shared globally yet, and most third world countries couldn't afford or be able to even do it yet. Which leaves us with wood, and that comes from trees which are what we are trying to save after all. At the core of all this we are still faced with the same problems we had with the coal issue. Cost prohibitive, technologically unfeasible for the developing countries, and just not practical right now.

And that describes the entire line of ECO-BS legislation they want to pass. If they pass their legislation it won't change anything but the costs to the end user, and create a new system of taxation easily manipulated by a wealthy few on the inside to create wealth from nothing. While they tell you how its saving the planet, they will still fly in private jets powered by petroleum, electric will still be predominantly generated the same ways, and oil will still power the worlds transportation until its either gone, or a newer, cheaper and better alternative is found... All that will change is a select few and government will get money from the taxation and regulations, and that will come from the people.

oil, coal, and all other energy companies and related industries will pass the new costs on to the end user. And a tax on CO2 IS a tax on life make no mistake....