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.
It seems that the liberals want children to have all kinds of health problems due to them not being able to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, since all the water has been diverted from irrigating the fields to washing "sustainable" bags.
Right, because people just do one load of laundry to wash one cloth bag. It's not like you just throw in the bag or bags with the laundry you're already doing every week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Harrier's logic is just fine.
He has consistently advocated for the validity and non-interference of the free market and individual liberty.
Is referring to yourself in the third person an homage to the "Jimmy" character on Seinfeld or famous 1920s bootlegger George Remus?
He has consistently advocated for the validity and non-interference of the free market and individual liberty.
In other words, you want to be free to waste as much water as you want, never mind the fact that California -- as YOU YOURSELF have pointed out in this thread -- has limited water resources, upon which the laundering of grocery bags every couple of weeks poses (again, according to you) a huge burden.
If the citizens of California decided to vote in favor of a measure to ban and confiscate all handguns, would you agree with their right to do that, even though such a measure would be blatantly unconstitutional?
The 2nd Amendment is very clear.
Nothing in the U.S. constitution prevents a state from defining marriage as it wishes.
That is why currently there are some states who define marriage as between a man and a woman, and some who define it otherwise, and DOMA is no longer in effect.
In other words, you want to be free to waste as much water as you want, never mind the fact that California -- as YOU YOURSELF have pointed out in this thread -- has limited water resources, upon which the laundering of grocery bags every couple of weeks poses (again, according to you) a huge burden.
You contradict yourself.
Your logic is faulty, but lets go down this road a bit.
You seem to agree that we have a water issue in this state(in fact a big part of the state's history has been shaped based on water rights and conflicts) and support lawn watering restrictions.
You contradict your concern by also supporting plastic bag bans, which necessarily use more water resources in order to be properly cleaned.
Right, because people just do one load of laundry to wash one cloth bag. It's not like you just throw in the bag or bags with the laundry you're already doing every week.
Is referring to yourself in the third person an homage to the "Jimmy" character on Seinfeld or famous 1920s bootlegger George Remus?
Neither - not that there is anything wrong with that.
Your logic is faulty, but lets go down this road a bit.
You seem to agree that we have a water issue in this state(in fact a big part of the state's history has been shaped based on water rights and conflicts) and support lawn watering restrictions.
You contradict your concern by also supporting plastic bag bans, which necessarily use more water resources in order to be properly cleaned.
Be consistent, will ya?
And you oppose lawn-watering restrictions, while -- in the name of "choice," a concept that utterly eludes you where pregnant women are concerned -- you support the environmentally wasteful practice of unlimited plastic bag use.
Either way the ban can kill people - through infections, or by a severe reservoir shortage in time of drought, on which the California agriculture industry relies heavily.
It seems that the liberals want children to have all kinds of health problems due to them not being able to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, since all the water has been diverted from irrigating the fields to washing "sustainable" bags.
Harrier is obviously desperate to be grasping at such straws.
"People will be financially ruined...droughts will ensue... DEATH in the streets...children will be malnourished... all because people *GASP* WASHED a grocery bag by hand!"
Drama queen much? Clearly, Harrier wishes to be regarded as a joke.
Harrier also conveniently ignored links from credible sources that offer a strong counterpoint to his dubious claims.
In a memo (pdf) released earlier this week, Aragón explained that this is an example of the “ecological fallacy.” In order to establish a link between the bag ban and illnesses, the authors would have to show that the same people who are using reusable bags are also the ones getting sick. This study doesn’t do that. Aragón also points out that emergency-room data can be very incomplete—under an alternate measure, there’s been no rise in E. coli at all.
Aragón also offers an alternative hypothesis for the recent rise in deaths related to intestinal infections. A large portion of the cases in San Francisco involve C. difficile enterocolitis, a disease that’s often coded as food-borne illness in hospitals. And this disease has become more common in lots of places since 2005, all around the United States, Canada, and Europe (for yet-unexplained reasons). “The increase in San Francisco,” he notes, “probably reflects this international increase.”
hmmm, you must have run out of intelligent arguments.
Well, ran out of arguments anyway.
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.
