George Will on global warming

It's hard for Tony to keep track of all his cut and paste arguments.

Reading OT's nonsense is like watching a small child holding his breath. Eventually you know he'll stop.

 

You clearly went to public school.

 

And that's why I know those figures are full of shit.

Got anything of substance to add?

 

The world of the wacko environmentalists:

(All in America by the way).

Gas: $9.59 a gallon.
Your average meal: $66.
Price for any meat per pound average: $8.10.

Price for Tofu: $2.59 a pound.


Price for America's economy busted: Our freedom, as China, India and Russia tell us to fuck ourselves.

 

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/cow_emissions_more_harmful_to_the_environment_than_car_emissions/
This is the sort of ridiculous lengths that wacko environmentalist will go to. Everything living thing has an impact on their environment but that does not mean it is unnatural or wrong. We as humans have the responsibility to take care of our planet and to limit our pollution. With that said we don't need to destroy our current world. It is high time this debate be ended and the pinkos realize that we do have a responsibility to maintain good pollution control but to also take time to stop and use real data instead of paid scientific data. We are not going to ruin our environment by eating burgers or driving our cars. The single biggest threat to our environment and ourselves are people with out a conscious who are hell bent and destroying our way of life. Nuclear weapons and fear is the biggest problems this country and world face. I would say that these so called scientist are in fact terrorists.

From wikipedia
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". Some definitions exclude acts committed by "legitimate" governments, however this exclusion is not universally accepted. In many cases the notion of "legitimate" and the definition of "combatant" is disputed, especially by partisans to the conflict in question.

I ask you to consider what these environmentalists are asking for and reread the definitions of terrorism. They are asking us to change our lives to stop living in a world of comfort. They want us to not have vehicles which saves lives and to stop trying to improve our current living standards. They are against anything that might impact their precious world. I have news for you, we all make impacts in this world, some good some not so good.

When you are talking out both sides of your mouth to prove a point it is very telling. First they tell us it is our vehicles causing global warming then they say it is farming and cows which have been around long before the industrial revolution and vehicles. I ask then if cows and farming are most responsible for (this hoax) global warming then why aren't we already living in 100 f climates because these things have been around since the beginning of time. I am in full favor of doing more environmental friendly things and do believe we can do better but that does not mean that we are destroying our earth. Terrorism destroys more then a million vehicles or cows can or ever will. The greatest threat to our way of living is not how we live but the people that are jealous and hateful of how we live.

 

We just hit the trifecta of stupidity: OT, Yawn and now Indians.

I have news for you, we all make impacts in this world, some good some not so good

Me, I try and keep my impacts to a minimum.

 

And that's the problem any time we try to have a discussion on this site. Neither the right-wingers nor left-wingers can keep from pulling the whole thing into the mud. Both are so inflexible in their thought processes, it's pointless to even try to have a discussion.

Based on evidence presented, I believe global warming to be real. I am not sure if we are the main cause. But I'm willing to reduce my carbon footprint just in case we are. I wish, regardless of political dogma, people would take better care of the environment.

 

That's one of the funniest posts I've read on this site indiansnetwork. Good work.

My only complaint is that you forgot to use the blue sarcasm font.

 

If you are truly willing to reduce your carbon footprint then we will not see you posting on here any more. To significantly change your carbon foot print it would mean to give up electricity, vehicles, heating of any type and to live off the land as native Americans did. (oops) That would mean farming which would mean pollution and releasing CO2 from the soil into the atmosphere which is horrible. I really don't see any way you can seriously reduce your impact on the world, unless of course you left the planet by a means yet not discovered.

 

He keeps topping himself! Bravo.

 

Stupid example.

Y2K turned out to be "nothing" because its potential harm was realized years before, and steps were taken to correct the problem.

Thus, the problem was corrected before it had a chance to become a problem . . . and I have seen no evidence that the money spent to fix the problem damaged the economy. In fact, the money spent beforehand likely prevented worse economic damage had nothing been done.

Y2K actually taught us a valuable lesson about the worth of an ounce of prevention. It's why you go to the dentist every six months (even if you feel no pain) or why you change your oil every 3,000 miles (even if the car is running fine).

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Just when you think he can't get any dumber.............he does!