|
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:53 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:
Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments? has he ever? why waste time with facts when a strongly held opinion will do? |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:
Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent. thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"??? sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind? that's the smart people talking about twits like you |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"mister b" wrote in message
m... On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:53 -0700, Capt. JG wrote: Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments? has he ever? why waste time with facts when a strongly held opinion will do? I'm a liberal, so I like to give people the benefit of the doubt! LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: wrote: On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said: Which "enviros" are you talking about? The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes. Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g. The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are malevolent. Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent. Stephen Who writes this material for you? The environmentalists (I qualify, but I'm not a member of any "movement" that I'm aware of) I know all stress how important it is to stop screwing up the planet for the benefit of all living creatures. What they don't believe in is raping the planet recklessly to satisfy greed. Without all those plants and animals, we ourselves end up in danger. It's all tightly connected. Just pretend for a moment that it's not so tightly connected. For example, imagine that humans can invent solutions to problems and that if something gets screwed up in the environment, humans can probably create a way to fix it. Now look at how the environmental movement is working to prevent energy development in third world countries like Africa and what this does to negatively impact human beings there. Can you imagine the entirely unnecessary harm being done to humans? Stephen |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
mister b wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent. thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"??? Notice how instead of addressing my argument, you change the subject? Don't you want to even think about how "Earth first" means "humans last?" Of course you don't. You'd have to admit you were wrong. sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind? that's the smart people talking about twits like you Those who think they are smart but are actually dumb, are the dumbest of all. Stephen |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... wrote: On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said: Which "enviros" are you talking about? The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes. Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g. The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are malevolent. Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent. Stephen It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment... Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them, but not fast enough, apparently. I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue? |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Edgar" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... wrote: On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said: Which "enviros" are you talking about? The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes. Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g. The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are malevolent. Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent. Stephen It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment... Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them, but not fast enough, apparently. I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue? Well, I don't know, but we kill most of them.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
|
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:49:56 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: wrote: On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said: Which "enviros" are you talking about? The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes. Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g. The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are malevolent. Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent. Stephen Who writes this material for you? The environmentalists (I qualify, but I'm not a member of any "movement" that I'm aware of) I know all stress how important it is to stop screwing up the planet for the benefit of all living creatures. What they don't believe in is raping the planet recklessly to satisfy greed. Without all those plants and animals, we ourselves end up in danger. It's all tightly connected. Just pretend for a moment that it's not so tightly connected. Pretending would be the only option for that. For example, imagine that humans can invent solutions to problems and that if something gets screwed up in the environment, humans can probably create a way to fix it. More pretending. There are countless things, minor and major, that humans have been unable to solve. The point is not what we have been unable to solve so far, it's what we have been able to solve. For example do you know how much more food per resources humans are able to produce now than a hundred years ago? In the blink of an eye, earth history wise, we have solved a massive resource problem, the exact sort of solution that negates all the massive fear mongering of the lefty greens. What? We're not running out of resources?? We have virtually infinite capacity _create_ resources????? Not only that, we're still getting better at creating solutions! Yet for some reason the lefty greens assume not one more solution of this sort will be solved and we are soon to run out of resources. As if there can not be any good solutions to produce cleaner energy, or any possible ways to clean up whatever we want to clean up, etc, etc. Now look at how the environmental movement is working to prevent energy development in third world countries like Africa and what this does to negatively impact human beings there. Please put the goal posts back in their original position. Can you imagine the entirely unnecessary harm being done to humans? ??? Please read again what you ignored just above and explain how denying energy technology to third world countries due to environmental concerns is not malevolent. Remember, that is my original and main point, my reason for entering this thread. You know, the point you have been trying to divert from? Stephen |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com