2007-05-29 15:30:00 · 10 answers · asked by pepsi 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
What the **** does that have to do with ANYTHING??!!?!
2007-05-29 15:32:57 · answer #1 · answered by You have questions I have answer 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The death penalty is far too inefficient a source of population reduction to make a dent in global warming - even if it were aplied for most crimes. For the environmentalists to see the kind of 'sustainability' they want, a very substantial fraction of the humans on earth would have to die, maybe 90 or even 99%. (That's still a population of tens of millions - entirely viable, genetically).
2007-05-29 22:35:36 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A very good question, and one in which I have never heard an answer to.
But it does underscore a major flaw in liberal thinking: It is self-destructive and certainly no long-term solution to anything.
2007-05-29 22:47:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I say fatten up the prisoners right before you apply the penalty. That way, you are burying more carbon, sequestered 6' under.
2007-05-29 22:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
LOL! Well...who really knows. But what is really screwed up is liberals are against the death penalty, but support killing babies....hmmm
2007-05-29 22:32:43 · answer #5 · answered by maggi r 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
So we should just execute everyone responsible for global warming?
2007-05-29 22:33:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think you have people and that lucky old sun mixed up.
2007-06-02 18:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL They would kill themselves
2007-05-29 22:37:07 · answer #8 · answered by Sheila E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
how can you be for abortion, yet fight to keep a murderer alive. it is not logical.
2007-05-29 22:42:57 · answer #9 · answered by out for justice. 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
because they are confused
2007-05-29 22:38:22 · answer #10 · answered by Nate 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋