2006-10-30 07:56:39 · 20 answers · asked by MOZ 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Looks like it...
2006-10-30 07:58:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
human beings were speaking about the elements replacing already contained in the 60's. The countries who've developed themselves (as we see it) have used diverse pollution to change right into a 'wealthy' u . s . a .. Now the countries that are far in the back of contained in the evolving procedure and that would want to't arise with the money for utilising wind capacity or doesn't have chance to apply water capacity want to do an same as we did 50 years in the past. Then different countries whinge, because they warfare to save the planet and then they say: in the adventure that they received't stop, we won't be able to stop. And it really is a not in any respect ending cyclus of particular destruction. we does not in basic terms ought to stop the pollution, yet we would ought to wipe out ninety 9 % of the human race and commence all throughout back. That way the international would have time to 'heal' itself till now an same component takes position back. because of this people are seeking planets to inhabit, because we are on a route to ruin ourselves. we are destroying a 4.5 billion year project in decrease than 500 years. Now it really is something to bite on. And no one seems to really care both. we won't be able to stop till now the best of the line is decrease than a meter away. we are in basic terms waiting for the large Messiah to save us. Which obviously received't take position. If each and each and every human being contained in the completed international will be wakeful about the problem we are in and help our community, it might ofcource more effective perfect the problem, yet not save the planet in a lengthy shot. we've taken too a lot of what isn't ours. because the more effective race, it really is our instinc. particular destruction awaits. one hundred years? 2 hundred years? three hundred years? that is in basic terms the count number of time.
2016-12-05 09:16:51 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Providing he doesn`t push the button that matters when he gets too high,who cares,anyone getting in next has got to be better than what is happening at the moment with what used to be a Great country to live in before the Taxing Labour Party got in.
2006-10-31 03:36:10 · answer #3 · answered by edison 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's talking about David Cameron. And what difference does being gay or sniffing coke make? Surely we just want someone who takes the right decisions and doesn't kiss the US President's backside and start wars we don't want or need or can justify?!
2006-10-30 08:05:13 · answer #4 · answered by Iain Speed 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't vote for David Cameron, but my decision is based on his lack of policies and the record the tory party have. Would I vote for a gay coke-sniffing man ? yes, if he had the right policies.
2006-10-30 20:20:56 · answer #5 · answered by dumberthangeorgebush 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alberto Gonzales (US Attorney General) Isn't Gay
2006-10-30 08:36:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What?Who?
2006-10-30 07:59:06 · answer #7 · answered by michael k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MIGHT AS WELL WE ALREADY HAVE A COKE SNIFFER IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY.
2006-10-30 07:59:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems to me that the less know about politicians private lives the better
2006-10-30 08:00:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you put nhs in the question,and americans think your talking
abount them ! anyway the answer is yes,because people are too busy watching eastenders etc
2006-11-02 11:32:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does politics have to do with being a gay ?
2006-10-30 07:58:54 · answer #11 · answered by Hustler 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋