So, if I can interpret what you're saying, YOU don't think the world is overpopulated, YOU don't think our resources are strained, or pollution is a problem, YOU don't think land is being over-farmed . . . .
And you want the people who don't buy into your denial to kill themselves.
Arrogant, HATEFUL, stupidity! That's just great! Thanks!
Could you sell this to a liberal?
BrianD3
2012/08/10 16:50:18
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
19% | |||
|
14 votes
|
|
52% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
30% | |||
1) Liberals believe that the planet is overpopulated
2) they believe that this overpopulation puts a strain on limited resources
3) they believe that this overpopulation adds to pollution problems
4) they believe that the land is beaig abused and is losing it's fertility
5) they believe in abortion
Could you sell the following idea to a liberal?
To put them to the test, to back their rhetoric with actions could we convince some liberal adults to choose voluntary abortion to save our world? Would they sacrifice themselves to be a part of the solution that they seek?
Could we, for a fee, offer to grind up their bodies and distribute them throughout the environment as fertalizer? They could choose to be distributed in a forest, an underdeveloped country, they could become chum for the fish or part of an organic farm.
Top Opinion
-
Not sure






















What proof do you have that none of this isn't factual? Oh wait! Right Wingnuts don't deal with facts.
Obama didnt "inherit" any problems, he activly sought them out and promised he could make things better, he has failed at that. DO not forget that it was a democrat congress and a democrat senate (which obama was a part of) that contributed to much of the problems he "inherited".
Rush Limbaugh has far more credibility than liar Al Gore. And I actually did watch Al Gore's crock-umentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," and found a long list of logical fallacies in it. A friend lent me his copy, asked me to watch it, and so I gave him a copy of my responses to it.
What exactly have I made up?
I saw a discussion thread, some time ago, entitled "An Inconvenient Hypocrite," talking about how Al Gore's mansion uses 20 times the energy of the typical American house. And I am not making that up. I have told you enough about my "sources," for now.
Since 1960, population on the earth has doubled.
You can choose to bask in your ignorance, but that does not change the fact that we occupy a planet with limited resources. Even more limited if you take into consideration that it is the only planet in the known universe on which life can exist.
"May the meek inherit the earth."
There is NOT plenty of people on the planet, otherwise, there would not be babies being born. Don't deny that there's a very long list, of very good reasons to have babies. Babies are even good for profits and the economy, all the more reason not to hinder other people, having their precious darling babies. No parent expecting a "precious bundle of joy," wants to hear that nonsense about "the world has too many people already." No proof has ever been shown of that. "Too many" people, compared to what?
And who is causing most of this "devastation" anyway? I would say, liberal retards and New World Order criminal elitists. I don't see that that has all that much to do with the common babies entering the world, as there is a good chance, that any given baby, will be neither of those wicked sort of people. So the innocent babies, are certainly not to blame.
Your statement doesn't even make sense. Even the eco-freaks say that there will likely be cockroaches into the future, no matter what happens. And if we want for there to be many people in the future, well there's a way to promote that. Have babies!
The more people there are, the more people there are who can benefit from experiencing life. There is no such thing as "too many" people, for that assume that God does not have a purpose for each person.
Besides, the baby in the previous comment I posted, looks to me, pretty excited to be alive.