You can stop pollution in america, sure. you can tax the hell out of all businesses so that all of americas factories shut down, nothing is polluting the enviornment, and stop us from owning anything good, sure. But if you do that, americas economy will be destroyed.
Why is this bad?
Human nature, once we strip our position as the world power all the other nations will be building factories and pollute the planet even more then we did, the only difference is that america will be an economically dead welfare state.
China is polluting the planet right now, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/21/news/smog.php and as soon as they become powerful, they will invade the us, become the world power, and put you enviro-liberals in sweat shops so you can make toys for their people. and worse of all for you, they will continue polluting planet earth
You are all full of sh*t and either want America destroyed, or completely ignorant of what's really going on in the world
2006-08-25
12:11:01
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Alabama lib killer
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Amen! The environmentalists want every one else to suffer while they go about their business. They hate America enought to demand America stop polluting but allow everyone else to do it.
2006-08-25 12:16:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Modest intellect 4
·
1⤊
5⤋
If environmentalists made no sense we'd all be dying from lung cancer and depriving future generations of resources by using them all up. Because we are more aware now we can leave more fish in the sea for other people to eat and if everyone signed onto the kyoto protocol then we would be saving the environment everywhere and for all people. You should be blaming the senseless countries that don't sign the kyoto protocol like the US for not doing anything about the problem. China will never invade the US, they like making money with their restaurants and laundromats here.
2006-08-25 12:23:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Egroeg_Rorepme 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You want to pave over the countrside, maybe ? I don't want to kill American industry. I'm prepared to spend a little more on products, if it means my children & grand-children can breath clean air.
Ecologically sound commerce is also economically sound. PLenty of people ARE prepared to pay more, if it means cutting pollution.
Why would anyone want to live somewhere, where the smog is so bad you can't see 5 miles (my home town of Phoenix gets this bad in Winter, I've seen Pasedena that bad too). When respiratory, heart & other pollution-related diseases have gone up 500%, will you be prepared to act then ? When You have to wheel round your own personal oxegen bottle on wheels,'cos the air is too toxic to breathe - will you act then ?
2006-08-25 12:22:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by dryheatdave 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
China will invade the US? Are you off your rocker? The only imperialist power in play is America -- we are the ones invading oil-rich countries, not China. And we pollute more than any other country in the world, China included. If we don't stop soon, the pollution could kill billions -- a slight sag in the economy is not worth billions of lives.
2006-08-25 12:18:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I thought this was a site for questions, not for rants.
*sigh* Ask yourself why tuna has become so high in mercury that the FDA is now saying that no one should eat more than one meal of tuna a month. Ask yourself why there is PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls, a carcinogen) in the fat cells of every living thing - even penguins in Antartica - and in mother's milk. In fact, ask yourself what rock you've been living under that you have no clue the extent to which we have trashed the planet.
Earth First! We'll destroy the other planets later!
2006-08-25 12:20:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by keepsondancing 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
What makes you think that being an environmentalist makes you less economically viable? Look at Honda/Toyota v. Ford/GM. Which one is more viable? Which one make more "environmentally" friendly cars?
Not to mention, being more planet friendly cuts down on health costs, destruction of land, and allows for more enjoyment.
2006-08-25 12:30:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by empathy 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
that's beneficial to objective and define in basic terms what you recommend with the help of the term 'ineffective'. In what context, 'ineffective'? inspite of the certainty which you start up with that 'query', you flow directly to objective to qualify it with what quantities to a chain of rants or statements (i'm being sort) to assist what you attempt to get during ....and to me, wherein you fail. through fact, i'm somewhat uncertain of what you element is or of you're desiring to ask / say right here. Your loss of punctuation does not help me, the reader the two. for my area, I actually have a decision for 'skinny' or the 'athletic' shaped woman sort ~ and that i admire the petite sort too. although if, the are the 'heavier' variations that I even have beloved as persons. And inspite of the certainty that their sufficient-ness is obvious and seems to be something of an advantage, it does not take me in that way. You write > that's one sided you may argue approximately character and so on properly tuff that's purly approximately lookes im afraid character is once you have time lookes is speedy and straightforward < And inspite of the certainty that authentic in what you assert, my reaction is 'so what'! You recommend you will purchase a e book in basic terms with the help of its conceal! Or a automobile with the help of ways plainly, or a house through fact of a image of it!! So, would desire to I too choose you on the way which you write ? With all your typos, spelling errors, errors and disregards of using a spell-checker? ~ and minus any end on your....'assertion/s'. Sash.
2016-12-17 17:19:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by lorrie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You must be a city boy, who will get sick if his feet stray off concrete, asphalt, or your living room rug. You might not care because the garbage man comes every tuesday.
2006-08-25 12:21:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by kentonmankle 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Wow - you sound like a real sh*thead.
2006-08-25 12:17:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Well then, it sounds as if you have it covered!
2006-08-25 12:17:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋