the first good crack was this: that we might be winning in Iraq it was a good one, but then: causing Turkey to one, Invade Northern Iraq destabilizing the most controlled part of the nation lol. As if you are ACTUALLY winning, and if the Turks will NOT invade Northen Iraq nonetheless. I think that more than 40 states reckognized the Armenian GENOCIDE as Bona Fide historical fact. Why
maybe we should adapt the air scrubbers they use on subs and space craft. I think the technology was based on this, but until recently, it was un-profitable to do it. I mean, who should pay to clean the air? The governement?! Certainly not! Let the polluters pay, in the form of carbon credit to buy!
Okay, now that we can take carbon out of the air, that should be the only way to get carbon credits. No more freebies. You get whatever you take out, that's it. Then you'll be living a carbon-neutral life for real. Businesses like the one described can sell their carbon credits to polluters, while neutralizing the pollution. I don't have a problem with that at all. well.. that would be economical disaster to many companies. It is more realist to apply a
Moreover, again I tell you that you will not get Christians to betray Christ. To us supporting a candidate who supports abortion is betraying Christ. Go, theocracy, go!
JoeUser Forums
Hum... in T3, were there flying killer bots?
I personally love income disparity. It gives me something to work for. If everyone got the same income, you would not get a raise every year, unless everyone else got the same raise. The new hire with no experience would get the same pay as you. Is that fair? Sure is. well, no income disparity will be pretty stupid in any economy.. - for the exact reason you state -. However, it is not what most liberal wants. <div class="Article_Quote
The 2 words are not synonymous but the meaning they bring out of the sentance is about the same.
Yes, but the downside is those of us who stay behind not being able to afford an ecco-friendly car will be seen as the ones damaging the planet and I would think that would not be fair. I.. god.. damn.. AS I SAID, IF you buy an non-ecco-friendly car, the carbon tax imposed on the manufacturer would balance out for the ecological bad side produced by your car. So you would not have to feel in any way guilty about it, since it's bit would have been paid.<b
You don't shoot people simply because they violate a law, man! As you can see, I said: you can't shoot people ONLY because they violate a law. Which has nothing to do with "don't shoot people because they violate the law" I still don't see why you said that I wasn't clear
Umm, you know I can not afford a new car right? I drive a 94 Ford Explorer, not the most gas economical vehicle, but it's mine. I paid $2500 for it and that was with my tax return. I can not afford a new car right now, what makes you think I could afford any car that would be eco-friendly? as I said , it would not affect the consumers until they will want to buy a new (really NEW) car. The only affected party - when it comes to car - would be the
You did not say that there. You clearly state that I did not said what I just said. which is why I don't follow you.
Your article really doesn't deserve a comment, but I take serious offense at the insuation that because I support Bush I don't support our military. There is no way possible for your comment to even come close to reality, but as usual, you're trolling for attention and seem to be catching some you worthless piece of panty-waste. well, there was a lot of political attacks in the recent years, saying that if you did not support war in Iraq, you did not su
Yes, and rural Americans will be impoverished because they won't be able to afford carbon credits, nor will they be able to afford hybrid cars. But that doesn't matter, I guess. well.. since Carbon emmission cap would mostly affect car manufacturers & transport companies, it would only affect the consumer's choice when they want to buy a new car. For example, if there WAS a carbon cap, the gov could give a carbon emmission cap to the new car put
I challenge you to prove the statements I made in this Blog are untrue! It's not the fact nor the statement I have a problem with, it's the interpretation you make out of them.
question why isn't this same congress doing anything about the current genocide problem. where, exactly? the one in Darfur?
Now that's stupid, Gene.
Genocide implies an intent. Many Indians died because of European diseases. Those were not brought over to kill people. Neither Europeans nor Indians understood how bacteria and viruses work at the time. Can you tell me how many Indians there were before 1942 and now? Let's concentrate on North-America since this is about Anglo-American culture. We can talk about the Spanish crimes in South America later. http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/w
You think! You did not say that. You said "violated the law". He did, but then we cant shoot back. Next time be more specific ...? Duh? I said clearly: You don't shoot people simply because they violate a law, man! Then you said: A guy walks into a shop and starts shooting people. The Police are called. They tell him to stop, and he does not. So wh
This is, I'm sorry to say, the most idiotic explanation (excuse) I have ever read. I can not believe someone actually excuses creating more pollution. Maybe we should come up with a murder credit too, then we can shift the murder resposability to the sellers. s it wrong to pollute the environment, or not? If it is wrong, it makes no difference whether someone has purchased a billion carbon credits, or none; the damage has been
A guy walks into a shop and starts shooting people. The Police are called. They tell him to stop, and he does not. So what are you going to do? Give him girl scout cookies? Think before you post! you try to think! You could have the morale ground on shooting back in order to protect public (or personnal) safety. You do not shoot him because he violated the law, but because you have to protect people. If you see someo
And you don't have to look long and hard to see where Al Gore is FAR more wasteful than the average American, but chooses to gloss over it because he purchases "carbon credits" under the idea he can pollute all he wants, as long as he writes a check. If we were in imminent danger, doesn't it seem Mr. Gore would be leading the way in being environmentally responsible? If you understood the principle of carbon-credit market, you would not say that. The ide
No. I would shoot them on the basis of crossing the border illegally dumb ass. that's what I said. You don't shoot people simply because they violate a law, man! What you are proposing is quasi-warlike behavior to adopt against Mexican aliens. "Shoot them on sight"
Yes, it is true that many atrocities were committed against the Native Americans in the United States by our government. It is also true that our history, while bloody, is no more or less so than that of the majority of other nations. Well, native americans were massacred by Spanish, Portuguese, Enlgish, French & American governement. I do not layed the blame solely on the USA - how typical of you to react life this -. But simply because you were one of
Native American culture was backwards. Some tribes didn't even farm yet. Live expectancy was lower than in European societies and the culture supported fewer individuals. It was GOOD that "Native American" culture was largely replaced. It would have been BETTER if the Indians had adopted the culture faster and if the whites had not believed that Indians were not capable of doing so and should hence be killed or moved west. Native American culture was not
...being a scientist in training, I have to pay attention to this...though I really hate the political aspect. Politics and science don't mix well. nor religion. Personnally, Paladin, I find your denial as much dogmatic as you find belief in Global Warming, so stop using those terms to slander our point of view. Let me tell you something: what is the economical advantage of global-warming-theory supporters for their points? I c