115
An inconvenient truth : Swingers Discussion 846371021
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsAn inconvenient truth
TOPIC: An inconvenient truth
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... More 
Start   21 to 30 of 196   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Scotty,

I'm not one of those that would mandate any of this stuff. That's why I said it would be a good idea, not that everyone has to do it.

It always perplexes me that the first place conservatives go is violence.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
tbr,

you reduce your carbon footprint, i'll do what i do. Don't tell me how to live and I won't slap you around like a bitch.

as for eating less red meat? You liberals want to reduce the cow farts? Well i'm doing that... I EAT THE FUCKING COWS!!! but i'm only one man.

Lake Worth FL
Username hidden
(7207 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Hmmm, no liberal comments to:"

Immature technologies often go down blind alleys. IMHO, it is a good thing that we are trying ethanol, if only to prove that it doesn't work. However, hopefully some of the technology will be used to come up with a better system.

See Betamax and 8 track tapes.

The internal combustion engine was much more inefficient and polluting than it is now for most of it's history. I remember as a kid driving into LA. You could see, smell, and even taste the air. My eyes and chest would burn. That doesn't happen now because of advances in technology.

So give it time. A better technology will be along shortly. That's what capitalism is all about.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"The only real question needed to be answered is: "Why did these states see a need to cap welfare?""

I can only speak for California on this one, since I was pretty involved in the debate in 1996.

Often, political decisions are made based on sound bites. Such was the case here. Despite evidence that generally people don't have more kids to get more benefit, the provision was passed.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
tbr I agree with your comments on the scientist findings and the debate on what is causing it.

I would like to add that we recently - in terms of the beginning of recorded history/stone age - came out of the "little ice age" which spanned over 400 years. If you google: little ice age - it will give you all the information.

I believe that this is a natural occurrence as grass and grazing animal bones were discovered in the icy regions of either Iceland or Greenland.

Fairfield CA
Username hidden
(575 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
tbr, your stats are 7 t0 10 years old...doubt they are anywhere close to valid...nice try though

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"When the libs decided to reward people to have kids and in fact they decided to punish these people if they stopped having kids."

With all due respect, pat, you have no idea what you are talking about.

"The average household size has declined over the last 25 years, reaching a record low of 2.59 people in 2000."

http: // www*prcdc*org/summaries/family/family*html

And the size of welfare families is no larger than non-welfare families.

"In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996)"

Further, many states have had a family cap in place for welfare recipients for years.

"Twenty-three states, representing approximately one-half of the nation’s TANF caseload, have implemented some variation of a family cap, breaking the traditional link between a family’s size and the amount of its monthly welfare check."

http: // www*gao*gov/new.items/d01924*pdf

This was in 2001, so there are probably more states that have it now. Here in California, if you have been on welfare for 10 months before the birth of your child, you do not get additional money for that child.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I have never seen this movie, although I did see the other recent one put out by Leonardo Di Caprio. The one that after about 10 minutes I wanted to stab a pen in my eye because it was so boring.

Here's my take. It is pretty much accepted in the scientific community that global warming is happening. The main argument now is how much is caused by man and what if anything we can do about it. I'm not that kind of scientist, so I will defer to the experts.

However, in my layman's mind, I think that the suggested steps to reduce emissions are probably a good thing. Even if it doesn't do squat to reduce global warming, it would probably be a good thing to reduce our dependence on oil. If nothing else, it would reduce our trade deficit and reduce the influence of those crazy bastards in the Middle East. Then they could go back to fucking their camels and demeaning their women.

It would probably be a good idea to reduce each of our "carbon footprints" (still not exactly sure what all that is) to save resources for our children.

It would probably be good for our health to eat less meat. I love a good steak as much as the next guy, and one of my favorite all time smells is bacon cooking on a Sunday morning, but I could probably stand to lose a few pounds. A few more salads would be a good thing.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Since gore admitted to lying for the "common good" about global warming and almost everything in the movie has been debunked, I am sure this is a good thing to show in government schools that have a captive audience..lol idiots!

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The environmental groups convinced the Democratically controlled legislators and previous governor (also a Democrat) that adding an additive (MTBE) to fuel would be better for the environment. Well, millions were spent by the oil refineries to change the chemical structure to fuel, as mandated by law, and it turned out to be more of an pollutant. This is the same group that is supporting 'the Gore'.

Fairfield CA
Username hidden
(575 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... More 
Start   21 to 30 of 196   End
TOPIC: An inconvenient truth