Joel Pett for December 13, 2009


Hide All Comments
  1. comYics  about 11 years ago

    Improving the air and earth and a better way of utilizing energy, really is a healthy way to go. Lets get some creatives to come up with some new green jobs that everybody can do. Not only a few managers that have 30 years experience making fossil fuel.

    Start getting rid of landfills, and making packages dissolvable. Less trash less massive air pollutants. Instead of driving miles to get to work, lets have work close enough to each of us to bike to work, or work at home. Lets Get These At Home Jobs Started! WOOO. Im sure many of you are with me on that. We can produce and ship items from home, at home business on treadmills to keep fit. 3-4 day work weeks. 1 day emphasised on health fitness day a week. Better food, gardeners galore. Fruits and vegtables. Jobs Jobs Jobs, healthy jobs, extra time with family, homeschool. All this is good. Yah!

     •  Reply
  2. OmqR-2.0  about 11 years ago

    ”What if it’s all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing!”

    Oh, excellent!

     •  Reply
  3. JerryGorton  about 11 years ago

    I love the sarcasm in the toon…”created a better world for nothing”!!

     •  Reply
  4. riley05  about 11 years ago

    So true, so true…and Scott nails it.

    The pollution-lovers like Scott will win because their way is easier and cheaper…for now.

    And so what if it makes the world worse for our kids…the rapture will occur before then, right, Scott? So the only kids left will be those who deserve to live in a polluted, ruined world.

     •  Reply
  5. riley05  about 11 years ago

    C’mon, Avator, show us some proof that massive production of CO2, plus massive destruction of CO2 removal mechanisms like the rain forests, not to mention other pollutants, has *no* worldwide effect.

    And just to save time, please avoid sources that are fundie christian, or financed by the oil companies?

    And perhaps, just to put things in perspective, you could tell us why you’re so pro-pollution?

     •  Reply
  6. OmqR-2.0  about 11 years ago

    ^ av8tor demands: ”Meanwhile, the EPA is displaying criminal negligence with respect to one of its duly authorized responsibilities. It should be investigating the matter of fraudulent claims, and suppressed data, at the University of East Anglia in England

    How an earth does an American agency “investigate” a British academic instituition? Talk about arrogance…sheesh…

    Motivemagus provided us with this Associated Press investigation into the 1073 emails stolen from the University of East Anglia:

    E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

     •  Reply
  7. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Nice sentiment, Charlie, but too many fundie-christians like Av8tor, Puppy, Anandy and of course Scott feel that Genesis has given them stewardship of the planet, which they interpret to mean that they can destroy it and still go to their heaven, even if it means people like Av8tor have to lie through their teeth to ignore the CO2 produced by other than “breathing human being(s)” sources in order to advance their pro-pollution-loving agenda.

    How sad they couldn’t adopt this interpretation:

     •  Reply
  8. ididnotinhale  about 11 years ago

    The world should be cleaned, no question. Pollution? Makes the air harder to breathe. Unfortunately, the campaign for this change has to be headed by this man-made climate change debate. I used to have respect for the scientists there, but now the scientists have gone and wrecked my respect.

    Why did they have to hide their methods? Whatever happened to the scientific method that I learned about in school? This screams money (why am I surprised?).

    Don’t spare me the “I am a pollution lover” argument. That argument is silly. I don’t want my country to end up like China, where they wear masks to breathe in their major cities. Where’s the nuclear power, nuclear fusion? That stuff is ridiculously clean compared to fossil fuels.

    Anthony, you might like this:

    Click the link under data.

     •  Reply
  9. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Slowpoke, read the link OmQ R provided, realize the scientists involved are desperate to avoid the sequelae of the evidence they’ve found, despite the fundie christians and pro-pollution people, and get back to us.

     •  Reply
  10. Dtroutma Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Can’t help but be reminded that the audience member is raising the “Saddam’s got WMDs and we can win this war for nothing” argument advanced by the same folks behind the climate change deniers.

     •  Reply
  11. Ronshua  about 11 years ago

    The on the wall agenda . Hoped for by all , I hope .

    Would the interpretation of the last line ” etc.etc.” be , American taxpayers pay whatever the cost ?

    I say , thank God for Global warming without it , this winter would be a record setter . The rising sea level and all is Miami Fl. still dry ? Sacramento Ca. is 11 foot sea level so I’ll hold off my move to Reno until San Jose is under water .

     •  Reply
  12. riley05  about 11 years ago

    All that ranting, yet Harley never mentioned why he’s so pro-pollution.

    Why do you hate our children so much, Harley?

     •  Reply
  13. ididnotinhale  about 11 years ago

    Yes Anthony, for example, I could make some studies on gravity, fake them, but gravity would still exist. However, the gravity of this situation is a little bit different, I should think. Should I really overlook this? I know the scientists want me to, because they’re human.

    Just sayin, with this flying around, I don’t want people to be jumping the gun on man made climate change. I can understand the urgency of the environment, but play to the points you know I care about: pollution, deforestation, habitat destruction, not a dubious temperature increase.

     •  Reply
  14. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Slowpoke, the only people who think we’re “jumping the gun” are ones who’ve only just become aware of the problem.

    The concept of global warming didn’t just pop up a month ago.

    But like I’ve said, you have nothing to worry about. The pollution-lovers will win, because their way is cheaper and easier, and doesn’t affect them…just our descendants, and they don’t care about them.

     •  Reply
  15. riley05  about 11 years ago

    The truth hurts, huh, Harley?

     •  Reply
  16. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Maybe we should point out that pollution is harmful to fetuses, then the pollution-lovers will rethink their position.

     •  Reply
  17. riley05  about 11 years ago

    You didn’t tell us why you’re against improving the environment for our descendants, Harley…are you finding it difficult to put into words?

    Why are you so pro-pollution?

     •  Reply
  18. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago

    ThePup is against LittleJoeStalins pushing their weight around trying to take advantage of the freedom we have in America. What harmful by-products are created when anaesthesia is made?

     •  Reply
  19. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Your first statement, like so many of yours, has nothing to do with the debate, Puppy since there are no “LittleJoeStalins” here. But I would remind you of the old adage “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. In other words, just because we could be free to pollute our environment doesn’t mean we should be allowed to destroy it for others who share it.

    And I don’t have a clue to the answer of your question, but would remind you that with any manufacturing process, pollutants can be dumped into the air, water or ground, or they can be contained. The former is the cheaper and easier route that I can only assume people like you and Harley would prefer, as the latter is more expensive and would usually require government regulation.

    And we don’t want nasty “big government” regulations impinging on our freedoms, do we, Puppy?

     •  Reply
  20. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago
    Stop polluting my environment, Anthony. Set your hiney down and sit still…No cars, no computers, no medical equipment , no fluorescent lights ; you foul, noxious earth-killer!
     •  Reply
  21. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago
    No toilets, no sinks, no running water, no underarm deodorant or toothpaste…Stop your noxious crimewave against my planet!
     •  Reply
  22. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Calm down, Puppy. Is your understanding of the topic really that ignorant?

    Does the fact that I use a computer mean that nothing should be done about any sort of pollution? No, it doesn’t, making your statements as stupid as…well, most of your statements.

     •  Reply
  23. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago

    Hold it right there, pal…do you know where those toxic materials in your computer go when you throw them away?


    India and others…

     •  Reply
  24. riley05  about 11 years ago

    That’s why I recycle those parts instead of throwing them away, Puppy. Don’t you?

    The best way to recycle still-working parts is to sell them, or if not worth much, advertise them for free on Craig’s List. Usually someone will want them.

     •  Reply
  25. Motivemagus  about 11 years ago

    It is a real issue – there are stories of giant waste piles, with mercury and other dangerous chemicals, where kids pick through to find useful stuff. The solutions are twofold: first, get it out of the computer in the first place if you can (many are; Apple particularly); second, recycle appropriately.

     •  Reply
  26. d_legendary1  about 11 years ago

    Glad to see the flat earth crowd is alive and well.

     •  Reply
  27. Motivemagus  about 11 years ago

    Yeah. I have to say the comment that drives me wildest is “we breathe out carbon dioxide every day - it’s not a pollutant.” Yes, and arsenic is all natural - it’s an element! Cripes, too much of anything is bad for you, including oxygen, water, and of course food. And the fact that your body gets rid of CO2 might tell people something, right? It’s referred to as a “waste product of expiration.” And if we cut down the various plants that absorb it, we’re ironically making an atmosphere much friendlier to plants than animals.

     •  Reply
  28. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago

    Go ahead , motive - Green Up. I’ve given you your marching orders.

    Anthony is so full of cow-doo-doo, it’s pointless to speak with him.

     •  Reply
  29. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Try saying something that makes sense, Puppy, instead of just wallowing in your ignorance.

    Then maybe you can grasp a point.

    Computer recycling? You ran away with your tail between your legs.

    “LittleJoeStalins”? You ran away with your tail between your legs.

    Anesthesia and other manufacturing wastes? You ran away with your tail between your legs.

    “Big government” regulations? You ran away with your tail between your legs.

    Pollution is harmful to fetuses? You ran away with your tail between your legs.

    Don’t you EVER get tired of being unable to look yourself in the mirror?

     •  Reply
  30. SClark55 Premium Member about 11 years ago

    Mr. Pett: OK maybe we would create a better planet - but WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO IT BASED ON A LIE? Maybe you get rid of some or even all pollutants, but WHY BASE IT ALL ON A LIE? I suggest that is NOT a better planet; I’d rather have some pollutants around.

     •  Reply
  31. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago

    ^^ Doo-doo.

    I don’t know who’s posts you’ve been reading , Anthony. But they’re not mine…

    “Socializing the free-market”…Why? Silence. Change topic.

    “Is it in the Constitution?” More silence. When you Libs can stop spending your time rigging the system in order to get your un-popular programs passed…I guess I’ll stop calling you LittleJoeStalins. And I sincerely doubt you’ve “bought” back your debt you owe (as per Lib BELIEFS) with your recycling habits.

     •  Reply
  32. riley05  about 11 years ago

    No way I can tell whether it’s you or someone who’s hijacked your account, Puppy. But it sure sounds like you…acts like you too, the way you keep running away from things.

    To answer your questions, what the heck are you referring to when you say “Socializing the free-market”? Make some sense and I’ll be happy to explain it to you.

    Is what in the Constitution? Do you think that a topic has to literally be in the Constitution before a law can be passed or a program instituted? Would you like me to start listing examples?

    And I will continue to recycle, thank you; even if you love pollution, I don’t. You could learn a lot about your religion from this person: be more like this?

     •  Reply
  33. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago

    So that’s your religion Anthony? That kind of religion is called common sense. Don’t poop in your water well. I’m not for polluting and despoiling the planet, I’m just against LittleJoeStalins taking advantage of hysteria for their own political ends. I don’t think there is anyone in America who is for polluting the planet. Since you are not a serious debater : this conversation is over.

     •  Reply
  34. riley05  about 11 years ago

    Typical Puppy.

    Asks her questions, expecting them to be answered. And they were.

    Totally ignores any questions asked of her, because she has no personal integrity.

    What a good little christian you are.

     •  Reply
  35. NoFearPup  about 11 years ago

    I guess you were waiting for a chance to say that. Too bad your venom doesn’t travel thru phone-lines (too bad for you).

     •  Reply
  36. riley05  about 11 years ago

    And too bad for you that you continue to run away from any questions directed towards you, while at the same time demanding answers to your own questions.

    Guess being two-faced is one of the requirements of your religion?

    Life is so much more comfortable without such constraints.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Joel Pett