Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Aerial Footage of Arkansas Tar Sands Oil Spill (It reached the lake).








Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Replies (31-40):
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Apr. 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM
1 mom liked this

 Sounds like most Canadians did vote in favor of that "fake" science, individuals or otherwise and said, "No" to the possibility of having an occurrence similar to what just happened down south.

Why makes you think that folks in the US do not have individual opinions on each and every issue? Your assertion is hardly true-

Quoting LindaClement:

Because unlike folks from the US, individual Canadians have individual opinions, and many listen to environmental doomsayers spouting fake science and invective, so they don't all vote the same way.

We don't vote directly for laws of any kind, and the 'no' was on polls, not elections.

Quoting Sisteract:

 That being said, how come Canadians voted NO when it came to the pipeline running through Canadian provinces?

Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.

 

I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.


 


 

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM

For which?

Quoting autodidact:

source? 



Quoting LindaClement:

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.

Quoting autodidact:

eye rolling


Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.








LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:09 PM

He can't because he left science (like the latest to quit NASA) to become a full-time global warming/environmental alarmist.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


I have never heard of David Suzuki. But I promise you he doesn't represent the entirety of science.

Quoting LindaClement:

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.


LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Why did you suggest that 'Canadians' voted for anything?

Quoting Sisteract:

 Sounds like most Canadians did vote in favor of that "fake" science, individuals or otherwise and said, "No" to the possibility of having an occurrence similar to what just happened down south.

Why makes you think that folks in the US do not have individual opinions on each and every issue? Your assertion is hardly true-

Quoting LindaClement:

Because unlike folks from the US, individual Canadians have individual opinions, and many listen to environmental doomsayers spouting fake science and invective, so they don't all vote the same way.

We don't vote directly for laws of any kind, and the 'no' was on polls, not elections.

Quoting Sisteract:

 That being said, how come Canadians voted NO when it came to the pipeline running through Canadian provinces?

Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.


 


 


talia-mom
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I love that people who pretend to care about the environment don't know who David Suziki, one of the world's biggest environmentalists, is.

krysstizzle
by on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM

There are a lot of environmentalists and people who are conscious of environmental impacts from all fronts. David Suzuki isn't the biggest anything, imo.

Quoting talia-mom:

I love that people who pretend to care about the environment don't know who David Suziki, one of the world's biggest environmentalists, is.


brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM


Oh-Please tell me great and powerful one. What are the requirements for caring about the environment? Are there any other people from outside my country I need to read up on before I can comment on the environment?

Quoting talia-mom:

I love that people who pretend to care about the environment don't know who David Suziki, one of the world's biggest environmentalists, is.



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Keep thinking that sweetheart.  Especially in North America.


Quoting krysstizzle:

There are a lot of environmentalists and people who are conscious of environmental impacts from all fronts. David Suzuki isn't the biggest anything, imo.

Quoting talia-mom:

I love that people who pretend to care about the environment don't know who David Suziki, one of the world's biggest environmentalists, is.




talia-mom
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I simply pointed out that some people aren't as informed as they like to pretend they are.


If that applies, hey, not my problem.


Quoting brookiecookie87:


Oh-Please tell me great and powerful one. What are the requirements for caring about the environment? Are there any other people from outside my country I need to read up on before I can comment on the environment?

Quoting talia-mom:

I love that people who pretend to care about the environment don't know who David Suziki, one of the world's biggest environmentalists, is.





autodidact
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM

for the quote


Quoting LindaClement:

For which?

Quoting autodidact:

source? 



Quoting LindaClement:

As opposed to science fact, that is.

Have you ever heard David Suzuki speak? The man's a born preacher, and his religion is 'people should not exist on this planet.'

He actually said that an earthquake was caused by how angry Triton the Earth God was over strip mining.

Quoting autodidact:

eye rolling


Quoting LindaClement:

My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.

When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.

We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting LindaClement:

If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.


I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.













Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)