Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 93,994
Wasn't their a member named AssEater?
Yes.
He took that shit seriously.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wasn't their a member named AssEater?
Wasn't their a member named AssEater?
Yes.
He took that shit seriously.
...It's like the climate change deniers. They want to invent their own facts in order to push their agenda which is to make a quick profit even though it will cost the public and the world an incomprehensible amount of money to repair the damage they have caused. If it can even be repaired. Their philosophy is to make the quick buck and let somebody else fix the problem that they cause.
It should be clear that willfully polluting a food source for the planet is a dumb thing to do. How it is even debatable?
but they are all easily debunked by science.
must be that same science "whose goal is to work towards Socialism/Fascism" doin' the debunkin'.
but this time it's all good, because reasons!
Sounds like a "dark, dark, hatred."
Excellent job keeping the script.
Couldn't possibly be any idealogical differences.
You should probably try to work the word unhinged into your talking points because that's the new "dark, dark, hatred."
When a person relies on gif's to continually make their points it shows a lack of imagination and intelligence.
This is like talking to Perg about fracking. He just knows that it is killing the planet, but he has no proof. He has myths that he spouts, but they are all easily debunked by science. When he has nothing knew, he just slinks away from the conversation only to assert six months later that fracking is killing the planet.
You have no prrof what-so-ever that pollution will occur and kill the salmon off. Yet, you and adrina treat it as a fact and as a done deal even though neither contention is fact.
The article is written to make you believe that this is true instead of being honest and opening with the truth, that the proposal is going through the approval process, not that the mining is going to commence come hell, high water, or dead fish.
You are pushing "fake news."
You really should be more circumspect and respectful— people will know EXACTLY to whom you are referring.
Uh, huh. I see— we've got another innumerate and economic illiterate who wants to impose the Stone Age on humanity. Good idea !!
Americans need to learn French methods of protest. That is, direct physical attacks on the politicians and the Miners. It has worked for years and makes for great TV.
Democracy is broken. This is the logical next stage. For both sides.
Americans need to learn French methods of protest. That is, direct physical attacks on the politicians and the Miners. It has worked for years and makes for great TV.
Democracy is broken. This is the logical next stage. For both sides.
You have no prrof what-so-ever that pollution will occur and kill the salmon off.
The issue was studied for 3 years. A determination was made, the process was followed and mine was found to put the hatching grounds at massive risk. The local folks, the owners of the fisheries and most Alaskans do not want to endanger the area and do not want the mine, largely based on the study and empirical evidence of other mines and their environmental impact.
You are unable to think critically and with comprehension.
Democracy isn't broken because you're not getting your way.
Proof? No, a rational assumption considering the gold mining processes and effects seen everywhere else that without some heavy handed protections they almost certainly will trash the place and kill off everything in their way of profit???....absolutely.
I'm all about liberty and capitalism, but not to the extent we let companies trash the food/water/air that the general population around them relies on for life as it more often than not is a direct threat to the lives and liberty of of those people.
Yes, but the issue is who studied the issue. This is another case where an outcome was desired so Science was employed selectively to achieve the desired resort.
If you want to see the Left go bat-guano crazy over biased Science, start loooking into this issue:
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...nd_homosexuality_unintended_consequences.html
https://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160304092230.htm
Silver mining would have been the example that you should have used...
To suggest that any mining operation is going to be allowed to impact that fishery is ludicrous. It's equally stupid to suggest that it can't be done without impacting it.
Birth Control and Homosexuality != Destruction of fisheries