Santorum: "We're not here to serve the earth"

[Not2BSubjugated]

This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.

If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.

My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What would Santorum know about "stewardship" when he can't comprehend modern science? Native Americans didn't know much about science, but they sure understood "stewardship".

In someways, I agree on the part that he doesn't want to increase our knowlege within science(either does obama), but his heart is in the right place with going after more resources. Hopefully, with the cleanest means possible. I love clean air and water!

Wow. Just wow. Well, can you at least provide some credible proof that Obama doesn't want to increase our scientific knowledge?

NASA Stalwarts Among Critics of Obama's Space Policy

Now we need the fucking russians to even get into space!

"Yet the new plan still would leave American astronauts no way of getting into orbit for the foreseeable future, other than hitching a ride on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft or possibly its Chinese counterpart, the Shenzhou, notes Politics Daily."

 

[Lakhota]

This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.

If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.

My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.

The Endangered Species Act? Inevitable result of evolution? Well, I think it's great to protect species from extinction when humankind is causing their extinction. Don't you...?

 

[theliq]

This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.

If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.

My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.

NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF A TOTAL MORON COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS LARDASS POSTtl

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I think it's a wonderful thought, yes, but I don't think that anyone's morality, no matter how basic it seems to them, should be a lever by which freedoms are taken from individuals who don't agree.

Spotted owl, for example.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.

If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.

My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.

NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF A TOTAL MORON COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS LARDASS POSTtl

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

 

[theliq]

I knew ole Si modo would finally get around to negging me. That's what many righties do when all else fails.

Yeah,Bitch.tl

 

[theliq]

This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.

If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.

My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.

NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF A TOTAL MORON COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS LARDASS POSTtl

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

Keep it coming LARDASS,I think I'm right about you but of course you are so wrong about me,little huhtl

 

[Lakhota]

In someways, I agree on the part that he doesn't want to increase our knowlege within science(either does obama), but his heart is in the right place with going after more resources. Hopefully, with the cleanest means possible. I love clean air and water!

Wow. Just wow. Well, can you at least provide some credible proof that Obama doesn't want to increase our scientific knowledge?

NASA Stalwarts Among Critics of Obama's Space Policy

Now we need the fucking russians to even get into space!

So, you think Obama is anti-science because he cancelled the Moon program?

Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program - NYTimes.com

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wow. Just wow. Well, can you at least provide some credible proof that Obama doesn't want to increase our scientific knowledge?

NASA Stalwarts Among Critics of Obama's Space Policy

Now we need the fucking russians to even get into space!

So, you think Obama is anti-science because he cancelled the Moon program?

Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program - NYTimes.com

Heck, not just the moon program, but most of man space flight. We've done nothing but go backwards the last 50 years, but this president has just put the nail through it. The guy's nuts.

 

[Lakhota]

NASA Stalwarts Among Critics of Obama's Space Policy

Now we need the fucking russians to even get into space!

So, you think Obama is anti-science because he cancelled the Moon program?

Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program - NYTimes.com

Heck, not just the moon program, but most of man space flight. We've done nothing but go backwards the last 50 years, but this president has just put the nail through it. The guy's nuts.

No, he's not nuts. Actually, the NASA budget increases under Obama. Obama is playing chess, and looking beyond the Moon.

 

[Si modo]

This is one of the major problems with political arguments: the straw men. In this case, the people firing those off are the dems/environmentalists. The implied argument you folks seem to be making is, "If you don't agree with everything my party says about the environment then the alternative is that you want to destroy the environment to satiate your own greed." I think it's safe to say that nobody here's quite stupid enough to believe that we can rape our environment and still be all good, so let's stop accusing people of arguments they're not making.

If you honestly think that -any- environmental deregulation from the point at which we're at is a deregulation that's going to destroy the planet, I have 3 words for you. Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of well-meaning environmentalism that really doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's only conceivable purpose is to satiate the morality of those who believe that any species perishing from the planet as a result of man's actions is an unforgivable evil. I wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment. It's unfortunate, granted, and I don't -want- to see species going extinct, but it's an inevitable result of evolution. As superior species evolve, inferior species are often doomed to obsolescence and, eventually, extinction.

My base point is essentially this: PRACTICALITY demands that we do what we can to sustain our environment insofar as is necessary to sustain our own existence. Anything above and beyond that is no longer PRACTICALITY, but a matter of MORALITY. Lemme let you folks in on a little secret. . . . Just because your moral hierarchy isn't topped by a deity doesn't make it any less subjective than a religion. I don't worship Gaia. She and I simply live in the same neighborhood, so I try not to go out of my way to fuck with her.

NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF A TOTAL MORON COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS LARDASS POSTtl

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

It's not his fault. It's just that he has difficulty when there is more than one word with more than two syllables in a post.

You didn't know that.

Innocent misunderstanding.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF A TOTAL MORON COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS LARDASS POSTtl

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

Keep it coming LARDASS,I think I'm right about you but of course you are so wrong about me,little huhtl

I wasn't referring to your physical size, just the ego you're putting on display for us all. You actually got a valid point? Or just more guesses about what I look like?

 

[theliq]

NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF A TOTAL MORON COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS LARDASS POSTtl

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

It's not his fault. It's just that he has difficulty when there is more than one word with more than two syllables in a post.

You didn't know that.

Innocent misunderstanding.

Well try this....Fuck Off ****....You are right only one syllable each.....but such accuracy....who needs multi-syllables when dealing with a MORON li

ke si modowacko.......you think your smart,you neg repping waste of space.....I told you before not to dialogue with me because you make me feel nausious...nowtoo late I'm about to VOMIT.

 

[Si modo]

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

It's not his fault. It's just that he has difficulty when there is more than one word with more than two syllables in a post.

You didn't know that.

Innocent misunderstanding.

Well try this....Fuck Off ****....You are right only one syllable each.....but such accuracy....who needs multi-syllables when dealing with a MORON li

ke si modowacko.......you think your smart,you neg repping waste of space.....I told you before not to dialogue with me because you make me feel nausious...nowtoo late I'm about to VOMIT.

You told me that before? I'm sorry for forgetting it's just that you are so forgettable.

So sorry.

 

[theliq]

Lol! You sure are an angry little guy. It's easy to call someone an idiot, but can you actually debate the argument? I'd wager not.

Keep it coming LARDASS,I think I'm right about you but of course you are so wrong about me,little huhtl

I wasn't referring to your physical size, just the ego you're putting on display for us all. You actually got a valid point? Or just more guesses about what I look like?

Really,silly games from a silly Twat.....I don't have the time for wasters like you and the nutty si modowacko

 

[Peach]

Keep it coming LARDASS,I think I'm right about you but of course you are so wrong about me,little huhtl

I wasn't referring to your physical size, just the ego you're putting on display for us all. You actually got a valid point? Or just more guesses about what I look like?

Really,silly games from a silly Twat.....I don't have the time for wasters like you and the nutty si modowacko

Isn't this planet God's creation?
***********************************

 

[theliq]

I wasn't referring to your physical size, just the ego you're putting on display for us all. You actually got a valid point? Or just more guesses about what I look like?

Really,silly games from a silly Twat.....I don't have the time for wasters like you and the nutty si modowacko

Isn't this planet God's creation?
***********************************

You are telling the story,please continue

 

[Peach]

Really,silly games from a silly Twat.....I don't have the time for wasters like you and the nutty si modowacko

Isn't this planet God's creation?
***********************************

You are telling the story,please continue

It seems strange a man as religious as Sanctorum doesn't accept the creation.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

taking care of the only planet we have is important. not sure why that's not universally agreed upon.