So Obama said he wants to save our childrens future from climate change (conspiracy, companies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
He's making great progress on that promise isn't he.
Excellent quote. Sounded great then, would sound great now. But now, he's more concerned about leaving the children green than solvent.
He's so double minded it makes one dizzy to listen to him.
BAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH... Al Gorezeera, is that you????
No, I represent "logic" and "reason". I'll post the definitions of those later, as I know those are two new words for you. Don't want to overload you with too much information, your already struggling brain cells have enough to contend with. That could possibly turn out to be........catastrophic!
Repairing healthcare and raising taxes on the wealthy will start to lower the debt. Sorry the President didn't go along with the right wings plan to gut the most vulnerable American's safety nets which would've done little to do anything about the debt...In other news, I think an improved environment is a good thing as do most sane people.
Yes, let's pizz away another $90 billion on improving the environment. A drop in the bucket right?
How can you claim that "repairing healthcare" is going to reduced the debt when it hasn't been enforced? Did someone tell you that? It's like saying you are going to open a restaurant and project future earnings, only to find out that after the first and second year you are running in the red.
Just how far and long will the taxes on the rich go? Will that revenue wipe out, oh say, a trillion dollars every year?
Improve the environment? Wait, are we talking about just CO2 here, or general pollutants like toxic waste sludge feeding into rivers and the watertable, mercury emissions into streams and rivers, and the like?
Global warming, not sludge or mercury is the priority.
He has the EPA and we'll probably see some type of cap&trade being formed here.
We dodged the bullet in Copenhagen so the EPA took over.
He's going to tackle climate change, not pollution.
That will allow for infinite funding because you'll never know if you're done.
Beats tackling pollution which is finite and can be seen.
Climate change is another perpetual war..the War on Weather.
Yes, let's pizz away another $90 billion on improving the environment. A drop in the bucket right?
Once again, your using simplistic thinking on a complex subject. You must first become educated on it.....then, get back to us. Read some on economics(especially macro), geopolitics(believe me, catastrophic climate change will have an effect), health issues which in turn are connected with economics/geopolitics(once again, a complex issue, not simplistic) and these are just some starters. Once you begin you're journey on finally educating yourself on these important matters, you might not think them to be as simplistically inconsequential as you do now.
Global warming, not sludge or mercury is the priority.
He has the EPA and we'll probably see some type of cap&trade being formed here.
We dodged the bullet in Copenhagen so the EPA took over.
He's going to tackle climate change, not pollution.
That will allow for infinite funding because you'll never know if you're done.
Beats tackling pollution which is finite and can be seen.
Climate change is another perpetual war..the War on Weather.
Once again, you just aren't familiar with the science. It's definitely telling in your trying to wrap up "climate change" into some neat and tidy "conspiracy" for another "perpetual war". Please, get educated first.
I would rather pizz away a few billions on improving the "environment" by repairing sewers and controlling landfill and mine runoff than tens of billions fighting a war to protect British Petroleum in Afghanistan. I would like us to change from a fossil fueled electrical utility system to one energized by completely recycled nuclear fuel reacted in inherently safe gas cooled facilities.
For what it is worth I do not think our cutting back on Carbon Dioxide emissions will have any major effect on short change climate on worldwide basis. We have already burned enough carbon to set the climate on a course of increasing temperature, sea level and storm intensity. The only think like to stop the temperature increase will be changes that will impose a substantial global cooling perhaps greater than the Little Ice Age from the mid 1300's to the mid 1800's.
So I suggest we continue to burn coal until we have replaced it with nuclear fuel and just live with the climate changes we have already started.
Climate change has been proven to be a fraudulent science....
You know not which you speak......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Priorites
