Joel Pett by Joel Pett

Joel PettNo Zoom

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    I wonder how many of the Plutocrats world wide really care?

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 1 year ago

    George W. Bush did more for the fight against AIDS than any other person in history.
    Of course you’ll never hear that from the lefties on this site or from our Failure-in-Chief.

  3. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago


    Yes, GW Bush did do some worthwhile things. But then, an analog clock that does not run anymore, tells the correct time twice each day also!

    He also took a reasonably well running economy, and ran it into the second greatest recession in American history by giving the wealthy unnecessary tax cuts, along with starting at least one totally useless and unnecessary war! Despite that, there was something at least appealing about his clown like klutziness. But, there was certainly nothing even remotely appealing about his vice president!!

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    @Robert Landers

    Please don’t give W ALL the credit. Bill pushed through the law that removed the Glass ceiling on the profits of financial institutions, and, had that Glass ceiling been in place, the crash could never have happened (which was why they passed it after the Crash of ’29).

  5. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 1 year ago

    While you’re at it thank the envirotards for getting DDT and other pesticides banned worldwide. That has resulted in millions dying from mosquito borne illnesses like malaria. But AIDS? That’s a fashionable disease that almost exclusively effects certain segiments of the Progressive Left in developed countries making it the one to popularize.

  6. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 1 year ago


    Bush’s support was commendable, though they did insist one-third of prevention funding be targeted to abstinence programs, which don’t work.

  7. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 1 year ago

    I’ll pass. While enviromental regulation was needed when Nixon signed the EPA into existance the current Zero Tolerance mentality of the environmental Left is an irrational absurdity in the extreme.
    How clean does the water and air need to be?
    How environmentally safe does a product need to be?
    How much pollution should we allow to occur?
    You see, Zero Tolerance sounds good right up until it strangles the economy, wrecks people’s lives, and basically makes things worse than a more reasoned approach that balances human needs and effort against the hazards that go with technology.

  8. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago


    “How clean does the water and air need to be?”

    “How environmentally safe does a product need to be?”

    “How much pollution should we allow to occur?”

    At one time the EPA had a standard of zero for many pollutants. As the accuracy of measurement capabilities came on line these pollutants were found to occur naturally in the environment as backround. The EPA continued to enforce the zero standard even knowing that the standard was wrong. I don’t know whether this is true today, but it was when I dealt with those matters. (Hastily written. Hope it makes sense.)

  9. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    A personal attack is always soooo intelligent of you!!

  10. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago


    I have to agree with the more moderate conservative view that both you and Enoki have expressed here (and I am a Californian!). It is utterly impossible to have any kind of even reasonable civilization and not have at least some affect upon the environment. As usual, what is needed is neither extreme when it comes to the environment. Neither the “full speed ahead and the environment be damned!” types, nor the “zero tolerance, and absolutely no pollution!” types are helpful when it comes to this most important of issues. The truth of the matter as usual, lies somewhere in between, and can only be discovered by careful and thoughtful analysis of each individual situation, taking all factors into account. Are our elected officials, or the captains of industry, capable of understanding the truth here? Hmmmmm….

  11. furnituremaker

    furnituremaker said, over 1 year ago


    read Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, published in 1963…it’ll make you think

  12. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 1 year ago


    Mikefive, I’ll give you two examples from their drinking water standard:

    Hexavalient Chromium. The standard is currently zero content even though this occurs in minute quantities (1 or 2 parts per billion to parts per trillion). The only reason they can set it so low is that current and very expensive test equipment can measure that small an amount.

    Arsenic. The standard used to be 50 ppb now it is 10 ppb. The ONLY reason it was lowered was better test equipment. 50 ppb is not a health threat.
    500 ppb is a slight one and 5 ppm is definitely hazardous.
    This tripled water bills for people across most of the Western US (where ground water is a primary source) as suppliers had to buy and install the expensive test equipment and filtration systems to meet the standard.
    How about this current one: The EPA wants to lower allowable Ozone pollution from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. That’s a decrease of just 5 parts per billion.
    Their “experts” claim that this will save 35,000 lives a year! and billions of dollars.
    They picked those numbers because the expected cost to the economy to comply with this exceeded 90 billion dollars. They couldn’t get the regulation approved without “proving” that it was cost effective so they just made numbers up to make it so.
    Another is the pending reduction in CO2 emmissions from cement manufacture from the current 90% to essentially 100% capture. This will close a third of US cement plants, force the US to import cement for the first time, and triple or more the cost of this basic building product.
    That is where the EPA is at today.

  13. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    How clean does the water and air need to be?

    If I were a conservative, the answer would depend on whether it was the air I breath & the water I drink, or the air & water you have to deal with. Conservatives are all for coal plants, but no one wants to live downwind of one.

    Zero tolerance is a straw man argument.

  14. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    While you’re at it, do some research. It’s hard to kill mosquitoes in water rich environments, when they need only a small amount of exposed water to breed. And if you can’t kill them all? What happens? Resistance develops. Your statements are the lies of the deniers and the fact free.

    DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease’s resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.

    Wiikipedia article on DDT.

  15. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."
  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).