is it political?
2007-07-11 07:18:18 · 19 answers · asked by NAMELESS ID 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I really struggle to understand this one.
On one side, you have an unproven theory that nobody really knows the consequences of,
And on the other side you have 3,000 Americans killed in 9/11 with reports that there will not be an "if" we are attacked again, but a "when".
Apparently liberals forget that human beings are capable of evil acts.
The only thing that would make a liberal fear a car-bomber would be if his car didn't pass his smog check...
2007-07-11 07:23:48 · answer #1 · answered by Sleeck 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Global terrorism kills 15,000 people per year - even including the huge increase after the Iraq War.
The WHO estimates that 150,000 people die worldwide annually as a result of global warming.
It's simple math - a factor of 10, and global warming will only get worse. It's estimated that this number could double by 2030.
http://environment.about.com/b/a/220382.htm
2007-07-12 11:23:16 · answer #2 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Global warning is a hypothetical & doesn't show if you do anything or not. Islamic terrorism is someplace else.An if it doesn't happen here than don't worrie about it. An if it does blame it on Bush as he didn;t close the borders, didn't wire tap enought, It's all his fault. Not our fault. Think that covers the Libs idea.
2007-07-11 07:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because liberals tend to look at facts and evidence. And every study done says that the chances of any American being killed or wounded by a terrorist act is so small as to be insignificant. Meanwhile, study after study tells us that if nothing is done to reduce the man-made contributions to climate change, the effect on Americans and the rest of the planet may be monumental. So, no, it isn't political. But if it were, well, you'd still have the liberals caring more about Americans than the conservatives.
2007-07-11 07:31:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because (human-caused) global warming can be addressed by regulating economic activity
I love this comment by Kevorkian... It about sums up all the global warming BS.
2007-07-11 07:26:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is political. If Bush had been championing Global Warming and Gore The War on Terror, they would be supporting the war now.
LIEberals are mindless.
2007-07-11 07:21:43 · answer #6 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
i attempted to study between the articles and have been given bored. i myself don't comprehend your factor. the government would desire to act while the extra beneficial income extra beneficial than the fee. the government at the instant spends trillions on all varieties of issues in all varieties of distinctive techniques. at the instant, i could inspired spending extra on the two. worldwide Warming, of course, is a lot extra risky interior the long-term, yet terrorism is extra risky interior the fast run (till you are the countless quite few who're being affected now. case in point, communities on the Atoll islands have had to been moved).
2016-11-09 00:56:46 · answer #7 · answered by piazza 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they think mighty highly of themselves and this is the only way they can "feel" in charge of something -- short of becoming practicing Christians. Heaven forbid! Still, love that fat, bald guy with the cancer causing phallic turd stuck in his mouth. Slow learner and is such a hoot!
2007-07-11 07:26:28 · answer #8 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because (human-caused) global warming can be addressed by government regulation economic activity, while Islamist terrorism cannot.
2007-07-11 07:22:14 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
2 reasons . 1. they aren't capable of grasping reality . 2. because most conservatives don't think there is global warming . And we all know if a conservative says the sky is blue a liberal will say it is green
2007-07-11 07:22:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋