You Can't Eat Money

...It's like the climate change deniers. They want to invent their own facts in order to push their agenda which is to make a quick profit even though it will cost the public and the world an incomprehensible amount of money to repair the damage they have caused. If it can even be repaired. Their philosophy is to make the quick buck and let somebody else fix the problem that they cause.


Uh, huh. I see— we've got another innumerate and economic illiterate who wants to impose the Stone Age on humanity. Good idea !!

______________________________________





Excerpted from:
About Me [The Author "Pointman"] (i.e., not me)




I’ve been commenting in the blogosphere for a number of years and under various handles but finally settled on the Pointman one. The reason I began commenting was that I hated the effect the environmental movement was having on the developing world. A thinly veiled political movement, which is perceived as simply a fashionable lifestyle choice in the developed world, is causing death and misery amongst the eighty percent of humanity not fortunate enough to live well above the poverty line.

Its influence and policies prevent the developing nations industrialising and maintain the status quo of keeping them in a state of permanent, grinding, border-line poverty. That is immoral and must be fought. Future historians, especially black African ones, will categorise the effects of the environmental movement as genocidal and they will be correct.

Fighting the excesses of environmentalism is an information war and it’s fought in arenas of public opinion to which the people most harmed by it have absolutely no access...





There's more here: https://thepointman.wordpress.com/about/




 
Americans need to learn French methods of protest. That is, direct physical attacks on the politicians and the Miners. It has worked for years and makes for great TV.

Democracy is broken. This is the logical next stage. For both sides.
 
It should be clear that willfully polluting a food source for the planet is a dumb thing to do. How it is even debatable?

This is like talking to Perg about fracking. He just knows that it is killing the planet, but he has no proof. He has myths that he spouts, but they are all easily debunked by science. When he has nothing knew, he just slinks away from the conversation only to assert six months later that fracking is killing the planet.

You have no prrof what-so-ever that pollution will occur and kill the salmon off. Yet, you and adrina treat it as a fact and as a done deal even though neither contention is fact.

The article is written to make you believe that this is true instead of being honest and opening with the truth, that the proposal is going through the approval process, not that the mining is going to commence come hell, high water, or dead fish.

You are pushing "fake news."
 
but they are all easily debunked by science.

must be that same science "whose goal is to work towards Socialism/Fascism" doin' the debunkin'. ;)

but this time it's all good, because reasons!

giphy.gif
 
must be that same science "whose goal is to work towards Socialism/Fascism" doin' the debunkin'. ;)

but this time it's all good, because reasons!

It's amazing how uncommon common sense is. Especially when it's backed up by science they find inconvenient

Very simply, of all the idioms, it boils down to: you don't shit where you eat.
 
Sounds like a "dark, dark, hatred."

Excellent job keeping the script.

Couldn't possibly be any idealogical differences.

You should probably try to work the word unhinged into your talking points because that's the new "dark, dark, hatred."

Polluting the world's food stores is ideological?
 
When a person relies on gif's to continually make their points it shows a lack of imagination and intelligence.




You really should be more circumspect and respectful— people will know EXACTLY to whom you are referring.



 
This is like talking to Perg about fracking. He just knows that it is killing the planet, but he has no proof. He has myths that he spouts, but they are all easily debunked by science. When he has nothing knew, he just slinks away from the conversation only to assert six months later that fracking is killing the planet.

You have no prrof what-so-ever that pollution will occur and kill the salmon off. Yet, you and adrina treat it as a fact and as a done deal even though neither contention is fact.

The article is written to make you believe that this is true instead of being honest and opening with the truth, that the proposal is going through the approval process, not that the mining is going to commence come hell, high water, or dead fish.

You are pushing "fake news."


The issue was studied for 3 years. A determination was made, the process was followed and mine was found to put the hatching grounds at massive risk. The local folks, the owners of the fisheries and most Alaskans do not want to endanger the area and do not want the mine, largely based on the study and empirical evidence of other mines and their environmental impact.

You are unable to think critically and with comprehension.
 



You really should be more circumspect and respectful— people will know EXACTLY to whom you are referring.




You need to learn the difference between making a point and enhancing a point. Zumi uses these things called words and his gifs back them up. As opposed to just posting a silly pic as the entire point.

A subtle yet important distinction.
 
Americans need to learn French methods of protest. That is, direct physical attacks on the politicians and the Miners. It has worked for years and makes for great TV.

Democracy is broken. This is the logical next stage. For both sides.

You propose Americans do something other than sit and bitch? No one in the USA can hear their chains since they never move. It's a nation of slaves and brain dead tools.
 
Americans need to learn French methods of protest. That is, direct physical attacks on the politicians and the Miners. It has worked for years and makes for great TV.

Democracy is broken. This is the logical next stage. For both sides.

Democracy isn't broken because you're not getting your way.

You have no prrof what-so-ever that pollution will occur and kill the salmon off.

Proof? No, a rational assumption considering the gold mining processes and effects seen everywhere else that without some heavy handed protections they almost certainly will trash the place and kill off everything in their way of profit???....absolutely.

I'm all about liberty and capitalism, but not to the extent we let companies trash the food/water/air that the general population around them relies on for life as it more often than not is a direct threat to the lives and liberty of of those people.
 
Last edited:
The issue was studied for 3 years. A determination was made, the process was followed and mine was found to put the hatching grounds at massive risk. The local folks, the owners of the fisheries and most Alaskans do not want to endanger the area and do not want the mine, largely based on the study and empirical evidence of other mines and their environmental impact.

You are unable to think critically and with comprehension.

Yes, but the issue is who studied the issue. This is another case where an outcome was desired so Science was employed selectively to achieve the desired resort.

If you want to see the Left go bat-guano crazy over biased Science, start loooking into this issue:

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...nd_homosexuality_unintended_consequences.html

https://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160304092230.htm
 
Democracy isn't broken because you're not getting your way.



Proof? No, a rational assumption considering the gold mining processes and effects seen everywhere else that without some heavy handed protections they almost certainly will trash the place and kill off everything in their way of profit???....absolutely.

I'm all about liberty and capitalism, but not to the extent we let companies trash the food/water/air that the general population around them relies on for life as it more often than not is a direct threat to the lives and liberty of of those people.

Silver mining would have been the example that you should have used...


:rolleyes:
 
Yes, but the issue is who studied the issue. This is another case where an outcome was desired so Science was employed selectively to achieve the desired resort.

If you want to see the Left go bat-guano crazy over biased Science, start loooking into this issue:

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...nd_homosexuality_unintended_consequences.html

https://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160304092230.htm


Birth Control and Homosexuality != Destruction of fisheries
 
Perhaps because we leach for copper there, but the biggest mine in North America is a zero-discharge facility. No water of any sort is permitted to leave. Someone left a valve open and we had a relatively small discharge of pregnant leach solution into a dry ravine. what that is is an extremely dilute concentration of H2SO4 with copper. That entire ravine had to be dug up as far as necessary until soil testing showed absolutely no residue. The entire ravine had to be rebuilt azs before and revegetated.

That was in addition to a 1.5 million dollar fine.

To suggest that any mining operation is going to be allowed to impact that fishery is ludicrous. It's equally stupid to suggest that it can't be done without impacting it.

We had people employed to set off noise makers and shotguns just to get migratory birds not to land in leach ponds.

We have one of the State's largest herds of bighorn sheep living happily in the mine. When they wanders into the road traffic stops until they leave. You are not even permitted to blow a horn at them. They have been hit on the roads outside the mine but we've never had one die inside the mine.
 
Last edited:
Silver mining would have been the example that you should have used...


:rolleyes:

Irrelevant, just about any industrial activity extracting natural resources has the potential to be a shitbag operation that trashes the place. Without the threat of government authority there to motivate people to clean their shit up and or not trash the place history has shown many will, and even under those threats some still try.
 
Last edited:
To suggest that any mining operation is going to be allowed to impact that fishery is ludicrous. It's equally stupid to suggest that it can't be done without impacting it.

Clearly they aren't.

But it's a legit role of the government to make sure they aren't fucking everything up for the rest of the citizens there who would get totally fucked if they did.

Thus submitting plans and getting approval.
 
Birth Control and Homosexuality != Destruction of fisheries

You didn't do your homework.

It is hurting fish and amphibians.

But this is why it blows up the Left; mention birth control and homosexuality and you have just set up two of their trips wires and they then don't giva a fuck as to what it is doing to wildlife...

:(

Have you not heard about out copper shortage? Our technology absolutely requires copper.

Is the hysterical rantings of the radical activist environmental movement sans Science worth the hits to our economy, standard of living and advancement of the very technologies that may improve our overall quality of life?
 
Back
Top