Kansasdad Posted October 23, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I find that the resistance is not in agreeing that we need to take care of our environment, rather it is resisting the solutions being put forth that really only line someones pocket. God Bless, K.D. Thats not always the case though. Look at logging on public lands for example. Logging on public lands actually costs taxpayers money. Shifting the responsibility for brown-field cleanup from the industries that created them to the taxpayer costs us all money. Dealing with the public health costs associated with air and water pollution costs us all money. When you really look at the green solutions out there, they are typically far cheaper than the alternatives. I have no problem with a discussion on how pollution causes health problems and cost us more than the solution. I think if the discussions would stay in this type of arena you would see much greater support. It is when you have claims of the world coming to an end unless you buy carbon offsets, from the company I benefit from, that I start to have problems. If they would stick to facts and dump the sensationalism and obvious money grabs you could have a fervent Christian environmental movement. God Bless, K.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted October 23, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 Fair enough Ricky. The funny thing about this exchange is that rather than refute the charge against Gore, Forrest attacked others for supposedly doing the same thing, being a chicken little alarmist. In reality, that is an admission of guilt. Even he knows Gore has been blowing things up for political gain. Ok, wait a second. I put up the article that refuted the charges against Gore. That pointed out that the scientific case he presented was true and supported by science, and that only some of the ancillary claims he made in his documentary are questionable. That turned into this big pile on by a bunch of other members on here that I am a chicken little, alarmist, love the environment but for murdering babies, and so on and so forth. All I did was point out the irony in calling me an alarmist. I mean honestly, if someone is left of center at all on here, they are going to get beat up. The problem is that those that dish it out, cant seem to take even a tenth as much as they dish out. I might add, I am the only one on here that has presented any actual science to back up my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted October 23, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 You don't even see the problems in what you stated. First of all, yes, you did start this thread, and did defend Gore. Then when he was attacked as Chicken Little, rather than defend him, you simply went about saying that conservatives were chicken littles as well, meaning that Gore was guilty as charged. I just read this exchange for the first time, but the implications are clear. Because I had already established the scientific case for what Gore was claiming. Unless someone wanted to challenge the science, it needed no more defending. I then just pointed out the irony in a self described conservative claiming that I was a chicken little. There is a lot of irony in that those who claim that Global Warming is a big hyped conspiracy, will also hand away their civil liberties at the very mention of terrorism. Next, let's look at what you say you have been piled on with. You love the environment and are for murdering babies. I am not for murdering babies, we simply differ on how best to reduce the number of abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted October 24, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.24 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I am not for murdering babies, we simply differ on how best to reduce the number of abortions. Abortions do not need to be reduced, they need to be stopped. If you are not for stopping them, then you are pro-abortion by default. What I still do not and cannot understand is why the environment is more important than the life of an unborn and defenseless child? You do not get challenged because of your views on the environment. You get challenged because your views and moral stands, as a professing Christian simply do not make sense. Just my personal opinion, but it is hypocrisy to say we should save the environment, but abortions should just be "reduced." One abortion is one too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted October 24, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted October 24, 2007 Ok, closed. Trav closed and re-opened this once before with an admonition to keep it on topic and not personal. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts