Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's totalitarian to claim ownership of a planet that was there before you and will be there after you. You didn't build the planet, you don't have the right to speed up its tear down either.
yet you claim the right to define "tear down" and present us with bogus science to prove it ?
I'm sorry, is oil a renewable resource?
Right, Oddball. It's none of my business that Humans want to be gluttons about the Earth's resources, there's ways to stimy the future effects of it and you're going to cry like it's yours yours yours. You're blessed to have been BORN, and further, you're blessed to have been BORN FREE. Get over yourself.
Are you trying to imply that doing an Abortion does not use any resources?
Secondly you have absolutely missed the entire point didnt you? Rand Pauls point was you're pro choice when it comes to something as controversial as abortion (undeniably) but drop the hammer on a light bulb or toilet when in fact the "replacement" offered is no more efficient.
Light bulbs that produce so much less light that people add more lamps Toilets that dont flush correctly so you flush 2-3 times I mean, this is not rocket science for a topic.
I understand and agree that the replacements should be more efficient otherwise, what's the point? But I disagree that someone is coming and taking your "Freedom to Pollute" when there's Laws designed to conserve the very Earth we live on.
I'm not sure what non-renewable resources Abortion uses, either....but you have to admit, he's not only pointing out Environmentalists' hypocrisy by drawing the comparison..........that is........unless he *doesn't* want to tell Women what to do.
None of it is any of your business, tovarich.
yet you claim the right to define "tear down" and present us with bogus science to prove it ?
I'm sorry, is oil a renewable resource?
no--It's a temporary resource that we would like to use until you can find something else that is practical and affordable enough so we all ( including you ) can live the life style we are used to.
Tearing something down without an alternative isn't something honest people will tolerate.
Are you trying to imply that doing an Abortion does not use any resources?
Secondly you have absolutely missed the entire point didn’t you? Rand Paul’s point was you're pro choice when it comes to something as controversial as abortion (undeniably) but drop the hammer on a light bulb or toilet when in fact the "replacement" offered is no more efficient.
Light bulbs that produce so much less light that people add more lamps… Toilets that don’t flush correctly so you flush 2-3 times… I mean, this is not rocket science for a topic.
I understand and agree that the replacements should be more efficient otherwise, what's the point? But I disagree that someone is coming and taking your "Freedom to Pollute" when there's Laws designed to conserve the very Earth we live on.
I'm not sure what non-renewable resources Abortion uses, either....but you have to admit, he's not only pointing out Environmentalists' hypocrisy by drawing the comparison..........that is........unless he *doesn't* want to tell Women what to do.
Right, and the problem is the replacement is not better, so what's the point of her job, why do we pay them money to do nothing?
Rand Paul does not want to tell someone they can't have an abortion necessarily, he does not want Government paying for it. While I'm pro choice I can see and agree with that concept as plain as day...
Pretending that a Republican wants the option to pollute more is a ugly and false argument... The Democrats have been in charge and done NOTHING to change pollution, because it's about how individual people choose to live their lives that will make the difference.
In the end a hybrid does not pollute any less than most other cars. The new electric cars are near 100% oil dependent as the oil is now converted to electricity is all. We have not moved an inch, if anything we are slowly going backwards.
yet you claim the right to define "tear down" and present us with bogus science to prove it ?
I'm sorry, is oil a renewable resource?
no--It's a temporary resource that we would like to use until you can find something else that is practical and affordable enough so we all ( including you ) can live the life style we are used to.
Tearing something down without an alternative isn't something honest people will tolerate.
I'm sorry, is oil a renewable resource?
no--It's a temporary resource that we would like to use until you can find something else that is practical and affordable enough so we all ( including you ) can live the life style we are used to.
Tearing something down without an alternative isn't something honest people will tolerate.
And when there becomes a viable alternatives to somethings destructive to the very planet that allows us life...........it's not sticking your nose in anyone's personal business. It's preventing that, in fact.
If they pay for what they use, which they do, it's none of your business.You wants to use our resources....you gots to pay the price
Screw you!
I got mine
Which is the whole point....You're sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong, under the pretext that you know what's in everyone else's best interests better than they do.
False. The planet and the future of the planet is NOT YOURS. Get over it. It's everyone's. If there's Laws to preserve it, keep it clean, etc. that's not sticking anyone's nose where it doesn't belong.......that's the opposite.
By dirtying the planet, and by being frivolous about using its resources, YOU'RE STICKING YOUR NOSE WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG.
I'm sorry, is oil a renewable resource?
no--It's a temporary resource that we would like to use until you can find something else that is practical and affordable enough so we all ( including you ) can live the life style we are used to.
Tearing something down without an alternative isn't something honest people will tolerate.
While the US's economic competitors expand the usage of alternative energy to limit the harmful effect fossil fuels has placed on their environment and people, while planning for the future, the right wants us to twiddle our thumbs.
When the the far right said they wanted their country back, I think they meant back(wards).
Right, Oddball. It's none of my business that Humans want to be gluttons about the Earth's resources, there's ways to stimy the future effects of it and you're going to cry like it's yours yours yours. You're blessed to have been BORN, and further, you're blessed to have been BORN FREE. Get over yourself.
I understand and agree that the replacements should be more efficient otherwise, what's the point? But I disagree that someone is coming and taking your "Freedom to Pollute" when there's Laws designed to conserve the very Earth we live on.
I'm not sure what non-renewable resources Abortion uses, either....but you have to admit, he's not only pointing out Environmentalists' hypocrisy by drawing the comparison..........that is........unless he *doesn't* want to tell Women what to do.
Right, and the problem is the replacement is not better, so what's the point of her job, why do we pay them money to do nothing?
Rand Paul does not want to tell someone they can't have an abortion necessarily, he does not want Government paying for it. While I'm pro choice I can see and agree with that concept as plain as day...
Pretending that a Republican wants the option to pollute more is a ugly and false argument... The Democrats have been in charge and done NOTHING to change pollution, because it's about how individual people choose to live their lives that will make the difference.
In the end a hybrid does not pollute any less than most other cars. The new electric cars are near 100% oil dependent as the oil is now converted to electricity is all. We have not moved an inch, if anything we are slowly going backwards.
His point is that it's none of anyone's business if his choices pollute, it says so in the opening paragraph. I'm not arguing that the replacements can and have been retarded, I'm arguing that YES, it is EVERYone's business when people engage in poor choices for our (Humanity's) home planet.
no--It's a temporary resource that we would like to use until you can find something else that is practical and affordable enough so we all ( including you ) can live the life style we are used to.
Tearing something down without an alternative isn't something honest people will tolerate.
And when there becomes a viable alternatives to somethings destructive to the very planet that allows us life...........it's not sticking your nose in anyone's personal business. It's preventing that, in fact.
What is preventing anyone for developing alternatives ? We live now---not tomorrow. You happily use petrochemicals yet condemn others for doing the same.
Right, and the problem is the replacement is not better, so what's the point of her job, why do we pay them money to do nothing?
Rand Paul does not want to tell someone they can't have an abortion necessarily, he does not want Government paying for it. While I'm pro choice I can see and agree with that concept as plain as day...
Pretending that a Republican wants the option to pollute more is a ugly and false argument... The Democrats have been in charge and done NOTHING to change pollution, because it's about how individual people choose to live their lives that will make the difference.
In the end a hybrid does not pollute any less than most other cars. The new electric cars are near 100% oil dependent as the oil is now converted to electricity is all. We have not moved an inch, if anything we are slowly going backwards.
His point is that it's none of anyone's business if his choices pollute, it says so in the opening paragraph. I'm not arguing that the replacements can and have been retarded, I'm arguing that YES, it is EVERYone's business when people engage in poor choices for our (Humanity's) home planet.
Here is the real answer... and plz try and follow it.
Rand Paul is a Republican/Conservative so you can't won't and do not agree with him. You will directly miss quote or partially quote him as to prove why you don't agree with him.
That's the end of the story. Go on polluting today sir as I know you will =D
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Right, Oddball. It's none of my business that Humans want to be gluttons about the Earth's resources, there's ways to stimy the future effects of it and you're going to cry like it's yours yours yours. You're blessed to have been BORN, and further, you're blessed to have been BORN FREE. Get over yourself.
You're a proponent of central planning. That never works out and invariably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual.
Did he call it, or what?
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, Volume II (1840); Book Four, Chapter VI
Right, Oddball. It's none of my business that Humans want to be gluttons about the Earth's resources, there's ways to stimy the future effects of it and you're going to cry like it's yours yours yours. You're blessed to have been BORN, and further, you're blessed to have been BORN FREE. Get over yourself.
You're a proponent of central planning. That never works out and invariably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual.
You think that people will be good enough people to choose, all on their own, to not adversely effect others and the planet, while simultaneously not thinking they're good enough to be representatives of Society via Government.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that EVERY WAY FORWARD, is flawed.
Musta hit ya pretty close to the mark, to get ya all riled up like that.Did he call it, or what?
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, Volume II (1840); Book Four, Chapter VI
You're an idiot to assume the paragraph is necessarily true simply because you see people agreeing with Government acts.....but then..........you'd have to totally ignore every time that they disagree which blows the tripe pretty clean out of the water.
There's this other stuff in life for thinking people: it's called gray area.
