Salty

iTrader: (14)

Got these off Drudge:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060804c.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/factorama.asp

ftnssn

For my money, whether or not you believe in global warming, we do need to cut down on our pollution levels.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Yes, and tell Bush to cap all the world's volcanoes, that and to paint all the cities bright white.

ftnssn

You're an idiot. Keep taking the opposing viewpoint on every blue state/red state issue and see where that gets this country in fifty years. People like you are whats wrong with this country. Whether or not you believe in global warming, pollution is still a major problem. But do you respond to that, no. You say something moronic, as is your way.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Of Course.

ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

A goal of every greenie should be to impose at least US standards of emission requirements on the rest of industrialized nations. If there is a way to reduce emissions without reducing productivity I'm all for it. Yet there has not been any major advances in this. Many power produces must curtail thier units because they cannot meet reduced level requirements. Automoblies suffer from decreased efficiancy due to regulation standards. The list goes on and on. CA for example imposes some of the most strict emission standards in the U.S. This does little to effect the overall pollution levels across the county/worldwide. In the long run the standards affect consumers by increased costs, taxs, maintenance. I find it humorous that CA requires a smog check but does not require a verification of vehicle safety. It's ok to expect emissions to decrease, it's the right thing to do. This expectation has to be reasonable, otherwise you impose unjust consequenses.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

who cares anyways?

we live in the matrix..

**** i ****ing told you energizer *** ***gots the super duper secret.. now agent smith is gonna come a knockin again.. been ditching his *** for at least a few eons now..