Lovely Boulder, CO

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by BigCliff » Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:54 pm

Spudnik wrote:Carbon footprint? When is someone going to address the real problem? If we reduce CO2 emissions substantially but continue to deforest the Amazon, one of the world's largest carbon sinks, what good is it? Carbon footprint is one of the hot words the media likes to use to get everyone stirred up into a frenzy.

There are bigger issues and concerns that need to be addressed before we should get serious about reducing carbon emissions. I would say potable water, consistent food sources for a growing global population, logically preparing for climate change, and the rapid loss of biodiversity are far more important in the immediate future than reducing carbon emissions by 1% in Boulder. Who knows, though?
Dead on. "Carbon Footprint" also allows schmucks in Cali to brag about what they're doing for the cause, and make it about them, rather than the poor brown people whose fields are turning into swamps. (The schmucks drinking 5 bottles water daily from a remote Pacific atoll and flying out of state 20x/yr, that is)
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
slavetotheflyrod
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:01 am
Location: City of Littlefun
Contact:

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by slavetotheflyrod » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:12 pm

Spudnik wrote:
slavetotheflyrod wrote:
Plow wrote: That's the beauty of this country,

don't wanna pay $21 a year to reduce your cities carbon footprint? - Don't move to Boulder
This statement offends me. Are you implying that I have to pay a tax to reduce my carbon footprint? I can't just use more energy efficient bulbs or insulate my home better without paying a tax?


Carbon footprint? When is someone going to address the real problem? If we reduce CO2 emissions substantially but continue to deforest the Amazon, one of the world's largest carbon sinks, what good is it? Carbon footprint is one of the hot words the media likes to use to get everyone stirred up into a frenzy.

There are bigger issues and concerns that need to be addressed before we should get serious about reducing carbon emissions. I would say potable water, consistent food sources for a growing global population, logically preparing for climate change, and the rapid loss of biodiversity are far more important in the immediate future than reducing carbon emissions by 1% in Boulder. Who knows, though?
I wasn't implying anything, merely stating that if you don't like the tax either don't move to Boulder, or, better yet, move to Boulder and start a campaign to repeal the tax.

I agree with you 100% about the de-forestation issue, however in the next paragraph you make the case for the need of "consistent food sources for a growing global population". The rainforests are being cleared to create more farm land, in order to grow more food. I'm not in any way endorsing the practice, but that's what's going on.
Make sure to keep the riff-raff out. - Outcast

Asking me for an avatar is like walking up to the biggest queen in the jailhouse showers and dropping the soap. - RFA

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by Plow » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:42 pm

slavetotheflyrod wrote:
So explain to me just exactly why a fat assed, toothless, red neck, right wing, deep south cocksucker like yourself would give even the slightest bit of a fuck that a bunch of "uppity urban mountain hippie losers" pays a $21 a year local tax?

That's the beauty of this country,

don't wanna pay $21 a year to reduce your cities carbon footprint? - Don't move to Boulder
It's not a tax to reduce the imaginary evil carbon footprint, it's a fee charged to all so the least useful and productive in our society can finally have something to feel good about themselves for.

Looks like none of this stuff is working out for 'em. Rational folks would do an honest assessment of what's happening and why and re-think or end the program.

I know its only $21 bucks a year but its still the peoples money and shouldn't be wasted by paying $90,000.00 bucks to a "sustainability consultant" to upgrade his home or changing peoples lightbulb. If its good for the folks and you still can't give it away then you got a bunch of losers running the city or its really not good for the folks. I think both are correct.

Clueless uppity urban mountain hippie losers
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
slavetotheflyrod
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:01 am
Location: City of Littlefun
Contact:

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by slavetotheflyrod » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:59 pm

Plow wrote:
slavetotheflyrod wrote:
So explain to me just exactly why a fat assed, toothless, red neck, right wing, deep south cocksucker like yourself would give even the slightest bit of a fuck that a bunch of "uppity urban mountain hippie losers" pays a $21 a year local tax?

That's the beauty of this country,

don't wanna pay $21 a year to reduce your cities carbon footprint? - Don't move to Boulder
It's not a tax to reduce the imaginary evil carbon footprint, it's a fee charged to all so the least useful and productive in our society can finally have something to feel good about themselves for. Least useful and productive? Are you aware there's no less than 4 nobel prize winners living in Boulder? More Olympic medal winning athletes than you could swing a dead cat at? Some of the shot callers at NASA? The folks in charge of the National Renewal Energy Lab? The NOAA shot callers? Lotsa really smart, useful, productive folks happen to reside in Boulder, and consequently pay the $21 tax (not that I agree with it either)

Looks like none of this stuff is working out for 'em. Rational folks would do an honest assessment of what's happening and why and re-think or end the program.Fair enough, bear in mind though, most rational folks aren't going to abandon a program after only 4 years just because said program failed to produce immediate results. Honestly, even if you were cut from the cloth of the true believers, would you expect a $21 a year tax to have an immediate impact?

I know its only $21 bucks a year but its still the peoples money and shouldn't be wasted by paying $90,000.00 bucks to a "sustainability consultant" to upgrade his home or changing peoples lightbulb. If its good for the folks and you still can't give it away then you got a bunch of losers running the city or its really not good for the folks. I think both are correct.Funny thing is, most folks that live in Boulder (and by most I mean like 85% or better) are thrilled to be living there. The data so kindly provided by our good friend Spud clearly shows this to be fact, median home value in 2000 - 272,200, median home value in 2008 - 530,100. Now, you can draw whatever conclusions you want about those numbers, but there's no denying the fact that those numbers would tend to indicate that Boulder is not only a highly desirable place to live, but also the kind of place that a lot more people want to move to than want to leave. My point is: If the people paying the tax are happy with it, why should you care?

Clueless uppity urban mountain hippie losers Uh, yeah. How many Nobel prize winners, world class athletes, and pre-eminent scientists and scholars happen to reside in your neck of the woods? Uppity mountain hippies? Yes, definetly. Clueless losers? Every town has it's share, but they're as hard to find as Republicans in Boulder. Coincidence? I think not.
Make sure to keep the riff-raff out. - Outcast

Asking me for an avatar is like walking up to the biggest queen in the jailhouse showers and dropping the soap. - RFA

User avatar
West Chester
Posts: 4820
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:13 pm

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by West Chester » Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:44 pm

There is a nobel prize winner living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... so whats your point?
If said posting of nude women includes her holding fish AND a large set of antlers (Non-photoshopped), then it can stay. Otherwise, No nudity on the Drake board. Skimpy? OK. Side-boob? Approved. -nemo

User avatar
Overcast
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:21 am
Location: On the mainland next to an Island

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by Overcast » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:10 pm

West Chester wrote:There is a nobel prize winner living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... so whats your point?
Come one, "West Chester" great minds think alike.

Get with the program. :wink
The difference between sentiment and being sentimental is the following: Sentiment is when a driver swerves out of the way to avoid hitting a rabbit on the road. Being sentimental is when the same driver, when swerving away from the rabbit, hits a pedestrian.
~Frank Herbert~

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by Plow » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:51 pm

slavetotheflyrod wrote:
Least useful and productive? Are you aware there's no less than 4 nobel prize winners living in Boulder? More Olympic medal winning athletes than you could swing a dead cat at? Some of the shot callers at NASA? The folks in charge of the National Renewal Energy Lab? The NOAA shot callers? Lotsa really smart, useful, productive folks happen to reside in Boulder, and consequently pay the $21 tax (not that I agree with it either)
Its not those folks, they’re the ones who won’t go along with the program. I’m talking about the wine sipping, goody-two-shoed-wine-sipping-urban-uppity-mountain-hippy-losers who think they know what’s best for everyone and will do whatever possible to force their ideas up our collective asses.

Fair enough, bear in mind though, most rational folks aren't going to abandon a program after only 4 years just because said program failed to produce immediate results. Honestly, even if you were cut from the cloth of the true believers, would you expect a $21 a year tax to have an immediate impact?
They are seeing immediate negative results its time to re-think not up the tax.
Funny thing is, most folks that live in Boulder (and by most I mean like 85% or better) are thrilled to be living there. The data so kindly provided by our good friend Spud clearly shows this to be fact, median home value in 2000 - 272,200, median home value in 2008 - 530,100. Now, you can draw whatever conclusions you want about those numbers, but there's no denying the fact that those numbers would tend to indicate that Boulder is not only a highly desirable place to live, but also the kind of place that a lot more people want to move to than want to leave. My point is: If the people paying the tax are happy with it, why should you care?
Boulder is a great place so why do all these rich folks need energy upgrade welfare(that’s what it is you know)? I’ll tell you why because those clueless uppity urban mountain hippie losers (in charge) want to force everyone to live as they think they should.
Uh, yeah. How many Nobel prize winners, world class athletes, and pre-eminent scientists and scholars happen to reside in your neck of the woods? Uppity mountain hippies? Yes, definetly. Clueless losers? Every town has it's share, but they're as hard to find as Republicans in Boulder. Coincidence? I think not.
Not sure where my neck of the woods is. I’ve lived and worked all over the world. Spent a whole bunch of years in Austin and watched it go from weird to uppity-urban-hill-country-hippy boring.

Clueless losers? Yes.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
slavetotheflyrod
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:01 am
Location: City of Littlefun
Contact:

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by slavetotheflyrod » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:55 pm

West Chester wrote:There is a nobel prize winner living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... so whats your point?
My point has to do with the fact that Plow was making generalizations that the people of Boulder are the least useful and productive members of society, based in large part upon the fact that Boulder is perhaps the most liberal city in America. You can say what you want about Boulder, but I doubt there's any place in this country, let alone on this earth with a higher concentration of brilliant minds and world class athletes per capita. I don't care what your political beliefs are, you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that Boulder is home to the least productive and useful citizens our country has to offer.
Make sure to keep the riff-raff out. - Outcast

Asking me for an avatar is like walking up to the biggest queen in the jailhouse showers and dropping the soap. - RFA

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by Plow » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:16 pm

slavetotheflyrod wrote:
West Chester wrote:There is a nobel prize winner living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... so whats your point?
My point has to do with the fact that Plow was making generalizations that the people of Boulder are the least useful and productive members of society, based in large part upon the fact that Boulder is perhaps the most liberal city in America. You can say what you want about Boulder, but I doubt there's any place in this country, let alone on this earth with a higher concentration of brilliant minds and world class athletes per capita. I don't care what your political beliefs are, you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that Boulder is home to the least productive and useful citizens our country has to offer.
Thats not the point I was making but will offer this up for clarification: As a rule the people who make the rules are the least useful and productive members of society.

People of Bolder are plenty bright, I work with some of 'em which still makes me a fat assed, toothless, red neck, right wing, deep south cocksucker I believe:-).
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
slavetotheflyrod
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:01 am
Location: City of Littlefun
Contact:

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by slavetotheflyrod » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:33 pm

Plow wrote:
slavetotheflyrod wrote:
Least useful and productive? Are you aware there's no less than 4 nobel prize winners living in Boulder? More Olympic medal winning athletes than you could swing a dead cat at? Some of the shot callers at NASA? The folks in charge of the National Renewal Energy Lab? The NOAA shot callers? Lotsa really smart, useful, productive folks happen to reside in Boulder, and consequently pay the $21 tax (not that I agree with it either)
Its not those folks, they’re the ones who won’t go along with the program. I’m talking about the wine sipping, goody-two-shoed-wine-sipping-urban-uppity-mountain-hippy-losers who think they know what’s best for everyone and will do whatever possible to force their ideas up our collective asses.Wrong! The intellectuals and world class athletes pretty much hold the patent on uppity mountain hippyism, it wasn't the miners and loggers that came up with that concept. For the record, I fall into the latter categories.

Fair enough, bear in mind though, most rational folks aren't going to abandon a program after only 4 years just because said program failed to produce immediate results. Honestly, even if you were cut from the cloth of the true believers, would you expect a $21 a year tax to have an immediate impact?
They are seeing immediate negative results its time to re-think not up the tax.
Last I checked, a 1% reduction does not equal a negative result. While it's not exactly setting the world on it's ear, it is a start, and that's a whole lot more than most world cities are doing.
Funny thing is, most folks that live in Boulder (and by most I mean like 85% or better) are thrilled to be living there. The data so kindly provided by our good friend Spud clearly shows this to be fact, median home value in 2000 - 272,200, median home value in 2008 - 530,100. Now, you can draw whatever conclusions you want about those numbers, but there's no denying the fact that those numbers would tend to indicate that Boulder is not only a highly desirable place to live, but also the kind of place that a lot more people want to move to than want to leave. My point is: If the people paying the tax are happy with it, why should you care?
Boulder is a great place so why do all these rich folks need energy upgrade welfare(that’s what it is you know)?The energy upgrade welfare of which you speak consists mostly of federal programs available to all Americans, not just the rich folks in Boulder. Why not get some of YOUR hard earned tax dollars back in the form of energy efficiency upgrades to YOUR house I’ll tell you why because those clueless uppity urban mountain hippie losers (in charge) want to force everyone to live as they think they should.Have you ever been to Boulder? I have. It's by far one of the most "live and let live" minded places I've ever been in the world. So long as you're not hurting anyone, not many folks really give a fuck what you're up to.
Uh, yeah. How many Nobel prize winners, world class athletes, and pre-eminent scientists and scholars happen to reside in your neck of the woods? Uppity mountain hippies? Yes, definetly. Clueless losers? Every town has it's share, but they're as hard to find as Republicans in Boulder. Coincidence? I think not.
Not sure where my neck of the woods is. I’ve lived and worked all over the world. Spent a whole bunch of years in Austin and watched it go from weird to uppity-urban-hill-country-hippy boring. Okay, first, Austin is part of Texas, which at the time I'm typing this is still part of the U.S. and therefore doesn't count as world travel (lighten up fucker, that was a joke). Honestly though, where have you been, and what were you doing there? A vacation in the Carribean and military service in Haiti are two different things, as is a business trip to South Africa and a private security contract covering the pullout of the few remaining Afrikaners in Zimbabwe. Based upon your opinions and political views (and yes, I'm making assumptions here) I'll venture a guess your travels have all been to the kinds of places where the water is safe to drink, the national sport isn't "shoot at the white guys", and blowjobs aren't sold by the dozen. Just my guess, and like I said, I'm making assumptions here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Clueless losers? Yes.
Make sure to keep the riff-raff out. - Outcast

Asking me for an avatar is like walking up to the biggest queen in the jailhouse showers and dropping the soap. - RFA

User avatar
Spudnik
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:34 am

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by Spudnik » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

The shot-callers at NOAA live in Boulder? Is that why they can't make an accurate marine forecast to save their life?
"Do you think it is real? I bet it is hard and soft, like hard muscle but really smooth skin. I bet it is real nice." - midstream

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Lovely Boulder, CO

Post by Plow » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:35 am

Last I checked, a 1% reduction does not equal a negative result. While it's not exactly setting the world on it's ear, it is a start, and that's a whole lot more than most world cities are doing.

They can’t give away free light bulbs and stuff. That’s like a hooker not being able to give it away (a negative in my book). Even a logger should understand that.
Boulder is a great place so why do all these rich folks need energy upgrade welfare(that’s what it is you know)?The energy upgrade welfare of which you speak consists mostly of federal programs available to all Americans, not just the rich folks in Boulder. Why not get some of YOUR hard earned tax dollars back in the form of energy efficiency upgrades to YOUR house I’ll tell you why because those clueless uppity urban mountain hippie losers (in charge) want to force everyone to live as they think they should.Have you ever been to Boulder? I have. It's by far one of the most "live and let live" minded places I've ever been in the world. So long as you're not hurting anyone, not many folks really give a fuck what you're up to.

Except for the politicians.
Not sure where my neck of the woods is. I’ve lived and worked all over the world. Spent a whole bunch of years in Austin and watched it go from weird to uppity-urban-hill-country-hippy boring.
Okay, first, Austin is part of Texas, which at the time I'm typing this is still part of the U.S. and therefore doesn't count as world travel (lighten up fucker, that was a joke). Honestly though, where have you been, and what were you doing there? A vacation in the Carribean and military service in Haiti are two different things, as is a business trip to South Africa and a private security contract covering the pullout of the few remaining Afrikaners in Zimbabwe. Based upon your opinions and political views (and yes, I'm making assumptions here) I'll venture a guess your travels have all been to the kinds of places where the water is safe to drink, the national sport isn't "shoot at the white guys", and blowjobs aren't sold by the dozen. Just my guess, and like I said, I'm making assumptions here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. [/color]
I’ve got over 20 years living overseas (corrected for Austin being part of the US – I had an old map) with just a bit of that being military time in Haiti. It didn’t even make my list of shit holes. Maybe some day we can talk and you can tell me how exotic and unusual Canadians are and I'll explain how to tell the difference between rat, dog and cat in a stir-fry (and how to season accordingly). I would like that very much.
Better Reds than dead...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests