Bald eagles are not endangered anymore, thanks to the careful efforts of environmentalists to ensure their habitats aren't unnecessarily encroached upon. Of course, you don't care whether they live or die, so the distinction is meaningless.

You're fine with killing animals to eat, but killing other animals somehow damages the environment. I still have yet to figure out how this is.
Try thinking about it sometimes.

Try thinking about it sometimes.
Translation: "I'm running out of ways to rationalize eating meat while decrying the deaths of wild animals." Animals die, species go extinct, this is how life works. We alter that process by our mere existence. And life will continue regardless of how we treat bald eagles, cows, or anything else.

Motherfucker. You're really going to make me explain this to you like a five year old, aren't you?

Motherfucker. You're really going to make me explain this to you like a five year old, aren't you?
It's much easier to refute your arguments if I force you to make them. ;)

Since Borghunter cannot see outside the meaningless boundaries of his moronic logic, I have to explain to him why it's not okay to unnecessarily encroach upon wild species, whereas the animals we've domesticated for human purposes somehow need their habitats and livelihoods protected. I have to explain to him why "life will continue," is not acceptable rationale to justify the senseless destruction of wild habitats. He simply refuses to understand the idea I set forth in my earliest post, that we have to take pride in the land we live in. He doesn't understand what pride is, just like Frogger. Apparently, a little logic is all that's necessary to justify attacking the environment willy-nilly whenever it happens to get in the way of human interests, no matter how small. "We eat cows!" You're a real logician, Borg.

I guess we're not all environmentalists like I previously thought.

Since Borghunter cannot see outside the meaningless boundaries of his moronic logic, I have to explain to him why it's not okay to unnecessarily encroach upon wild species
I don't think anyone believes we should "unnecessarily" encroach upon wild species. We differ on the definition of "unnecessarily".
I have to explain to him why "life will continue," is not acceptable rationale to justify the senseless destruction of wild habitats.
Again, the key word is "senseless".
He simply refuses to understand the idea I set forth in my earliest post, that we have to take pride in the land we live in.
That's such a nebulous term, pride.
Apparently, a little logic is all that's necessary to justify attacking the environment willy-nilly whenever it happens to get in the way of human interests, no matter how small.
The great irony is that you have human interests in mind when you argue for conserving the environment. You're just as selfish as me or Frogger. At least I admit it.

The great irony is that you have human interests in mind when you argue for conserving the environment. You're just as selfish as me or Frogger. At least I admit it.
Yeah. Irony, that's it. That's your fucking argument? Go play some video games.

That's such a nebulous term, pride.

Again, the key word is "senseless".

We differ on the definition of "unnecessarily".
There's a way to argue semantics, and a way not to argue semantics. Whining that we don't share the same definitions is not it.

I'm off to start the day. Thanks for a stupid morning.

There's a way to argue semantics, and a way not to argue semantics. Whining that we don't share the same definitions is not it.
You're really not getting it. Do I think we should go around destroying habitats, killing animals, and in general wrecking things just because Wal Mart wants to build in the middle of the Everglades? Of course not. Do I think this would create catastrophic effects on us? No, not really. My main beef with you and most other environmentalists is the hysteria produced because of whatever cause they happen to be working on. Our lives are not going to be affected in any measurable way because the Amazonian Big-Dicked Ant went extinct. On the other hand, tearing down the Amazon to build, say, coal power plants is far from a good idea.

Borg,


You are fighting a losing argument. Nappy and Leper seem to be of the opinion that if you value human life over that of an animal species you wish that animal species ill. They keep coming up with the same false argument that you want to do away with Bald Eagles :(you may substitute the animal of your choice). They seem unable to understand that you may wish that no animal species becomes extinct but can still hold the opinion that if it comes to animal lives vs human lives the human lives have more value.

I don't really feel that I identify with either side in this argument.

I'd say eventually people may just over crowd the world. We'll be lucky to have zoos some where down the line. We're going to need all the space we can find.
So, down with animals, get me a nice apartment with a savanna view.

There isnt a problem with space to live in, what the problems are and will increasingly become are food and water.

Cereal products have shot up in price in the west, because so much grain is now produced for bio fuel and not your breakfast.

Water-or lack of it, is and will become the #1 issue for regions of the world this century.

Already vast sways of sub Saharan Africa and the interior of Australia are becoming waste lands, in Australias case very few live there, in Africas case tens of millions live there.

You're really not getting it. Do I think we should go around destroying habitats, killing animals, and in general wrecking things just because Wal Mart wants to build in the middle of the Everglades?
You are advocating that very thing. That very thing. Giant pandas roam through areas trafficked by humans, a few kids get killed due to lazy mothers. Your solution? Slaughter pandas. Grizzly bears pose threats to mining communities by their very presence. Slaughter all those in the area.

C'mon now, hysteria? Do I look like I'm preaching hysteria? Get your head out of your ass, Borg. Apparently it is hysteria to worry about threatened species, threatened habitats, what we're doing to the environment. You fuckers automatically categorize any action taken by environmentalists as hysteria. Enviro-whackos. It's sickening. I don't agree with every little thing. But I don't simply dismiss any and all concerns about the environment out of hand, as you are advocating doing.

Hysteria. That's your concern. Someone worries about what we're doing to river dolphins. Hysteria!

There isnt a problem with space to live in, what the problems are and will increasingly become are food and water.

Cereal products have shot up in price in the west, because so much grain is now produced for bio fuel and not your breakfast.

Water-or lack of it, is and will become the #1 issue for regions of the world this century.

Already vast sways of sub Saharan Africa and the interior of Australia are becoming waste lands, in Australias case very few live there, in Africas case tens of millions live there.
At present I wouldn't say it is. But the human population has grown by a billion or so since the 80's.

I'd say, Africa has always been in trouble one way or the other.
I think they should,ve taken Sam Kinison's advice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNoJ2BzSRU

That would solve all our problems. Animals and people.

Wow, let me correct that population spurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

On this site you can actually watch as the human population grows.
http://math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html

There is a slow decline in birth rates. But it isnt sure if that will effect human population anytime soon.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Human_population_explosion

Nappy is creating strawmen through the use of hyperbole and outright mis-statements of what other people say.

No one is advocating just killing off all grizzly bears or giant pandas. People realize that there are dangers inherent in living alongside wild animals.

The topic being discussed is the witholding of a pesticide that can save tens of thousands of human lives at the possible expense of certain species of wildlife.

You either value human life above all other life or you believe a flea is a roach is a rat is a boy and all life has equal value. I am in the camp that values human life above all others.

No one is advocating just killing off all grizzly bears or giant pandas.
That would really put a dent in God's plans. How else would He kill children?

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them"
2 Kings 2:23-24

They're really not. I'd kill all the bald eagles in the world, by myself, if it saved the lives of just five people, much less ten thousand.


Basically, you're saying you're an anthropocentrist. In other words, you believe the world revolves around humans. Wilderness is the enemy. Anything that infringes on human survivability should be destroyed. If there's a jungle and humans need more room to expand, it's a no brainer for you - destroy the jungle.

Would you build a Walmart over the Everglades? You say no. But what if instead of "Walmart" I called it a "food delivery mechanism that masses of people need to survive." If it were couched like that, it sounds like you would be happy to pave over the Everglades.

To me it's not so black and white - If humans were struggling for survival, I would probably agree with you. However, we clearly are not. There are over 6 billion humans on the planet, more than any species larger than an insect. We have literally overrun the entire planet. We don't need to expand anymore. Expansion for humans is a luxury.

To completely destroy a species, particularly an advanced species, in order to ingratiate our burgeoning population is simply wrong to me. It's like an island overrun with rats consuming the last few species on the island - it's an offense against nature.

You either value human life above all other life or you believe a flea is a roach is a rat is a boy and all life has equal value. I am in the camp that values human life above all others.

But doesn't this logic support killing all grizzly bears if a few innocent humans are killed by grizzly bears?

How do you draw the distinction - A few lives are disposable but a few thousand are not?

Why are we even having this debate? Using DDT in the United States saves no lives and kills bald eagles. Using DDT in developing nations in Africa saves a lot of lives and kills no bald eagles. It seems to me like there's no reason to have to choose between eagles and people.

DDT affects most wildlife - even if it isn't affecting the bald eagle anymore, you can bet it's affecting the indigenous wildlife of whatever area we're talking about.

Substitute the Monkey Eagle for Bald Eagle if it makes you feel the debate is more relevant.

You either value human life above all other life or you believe a flea is a roach is a rat is a boy and all life has equal value. I am in the camp that values human life above all others.

The problem I have with your premise, besides what I just said to Borg, is that you would not part with any of your ten dollar bills to save a human life. You would rather destroy bald eagles than part with your luxuries to "save lives."

Don't act like you give a shit about malaria in Africa when you aren't willing to do a damn thing to fight it.

There you go again, telling me what I think and how I spend my money. How unbelievably arrogant of you to tell me, " you would not part with any of your ten dollar bills to save a human life. You would rather destroy bald eagles than part with your luxuries to "save lives."

Don't act like you give a shit about malaria in Africa when you aren't willing to do a damn thing to fight it."

You don't know diddlysquat about me or anyone else who posts here. I do in fact give to charities, some of which send money to Africa. I do in fact give money to the North Shore Animal League.

Why don't you post notarized statements showing all the money you have given to save the Bald Eagle or other species. Post a notarized statement showing how much you have spent on malaria control including how many mosquito nets you have purchased and sent to Africa.

I choose how to spend my money. I recently spent money to send a care package to a soldier serving in Iraq. Did you? If you don't believe I did it you can ask Vilepagan.

.

To me it's not so black and white - If humans were struggling for survival, I would probably agree with you. However, we clearly are not. There are over 6 billion humans on the planet, more than any species larger than an insect. We have literally overrun the entire planet. We don't need to expand anymore. Expansion for humans is a luxury.

To completely destroy a species, particularly an advanced species, in order to ingratiate our burgeoning population is simply wrong to me. It's like an island overrun with rats consuming the last few species on the island - it's an offense against nature.

Well said, Lep.

The problem I have with your premise, besides what I just said to Borg, is that you would not part with any of your ten dollar bills to save a human life. You would rather destroy bald eagles than part with your luxuries to "save lives."

Don't act like you give a shit about malaria in Africa when you aren't willing to do a damn thing to fight it.
Huh, well..

Froggers stated what hes done, what you done?

P.S. Tell people in Japan expanding is a luxury.

You either value human life above all other life or you believe a flea is a roach is a rat is a boy and all life has equal value.
What a retarded dichotomy. I want no part of it.

Basically, you're saying you're an anthropocentrist. In other words, you believe the world revolves around humans. Wilderness is the enemy. Anything that infringes on human survivability should be destroyed. If there's a jungle and humans need more room to expand, it's a no brainer for you - destroy the jungle.

Would you build a Walmart over the Everglades? You say no. But what if instead of "Walmart" I called it a "food delivery mechanism that masses of people need to survive." If it were couched like that, it sounds like you would be happy to pave over the Everglades.

To me it's not so black and white - If humans were struggling for survival, I would probably agree with you. However, we clearly are not. There are over 6 billion humans on the planet, more than any species larger than an insect. We have literally overrun the entire planet. We don't need to expand anymore. Expansion for humans is a luxury.

To completely destroy a species, particularly an advanced species, in order to ingratiate our burgeoning population is simply wrong to me. It's like an island overrun with rats consuming the last few species on the island - it's an offense against nature.
What a fantastic post. Much better said than I tried to.

What a retarded dichotomy. I want no part of it.
Retarded?

I have yet to see anyone argue against you with anything that wasn't reasonable.

I tell you what. If killing a fuzzy bear meant I wouldn't die I'm going to blow that bears brains out with the first shotgun I find.

I don't have anything against animals, but if it ever came down to how many people we could save by how many animals we could kill. I'd be in the front row with a seal club in hand. Helping to save humanity.

As far as animal activist go, they haven't done anything to inspire me to think differently.
That bitch from PITA puts hits out on people to dowse them with red paint and hit people in the face with pies. She holds her own kind of terrorism on people she knows can help her cause and simply don't want to.
Leaving people in fear of being harassed on a daily basis by various fruitcakes who love animals enough to go to jail for them.

If I ever get a million dollars, I'd spend it all on having people smack that bitch in the face daily with a raw pork chop.
I'd call it the, "Smack the bitch from pita in the face daily with a raw pork chop campaign"

She went as far as to send some guy undercover to the butterball plant to scare people away from turkey on thanks giving.

No one gives a shit about turkeys unless they're over cooked.

And now some guy who once argued that people can take care of themselves seems to be making a completely different argument. We can rely on mankind to take care of mankind. Someone later says, they value human life above all other life and you say its retarded.
Thats whats wrong with the world.
People could care less about whats wrong with the world. As long as someone is listening to them bitch.

I have yet to see anyone argue against you with anything that wasn't reasonable.
You're one to talk.

You're one to talk.
good point.

Huh, well..

Froggers stated what hes done, what you done?

P.S. Tell people in Japan expanding is a luxury.

He's probably donated more than I, not that you can tell from what people say about themselves on the internet - but you're trying to compare a 29-year old paying off student loan debt to a 65-year old retiree with homes in Long Island and South Florida.

The fact that that Frogger donated some unknown amount of money to a charity that gives some money to Africa (which could be his church for all we know) does not make him some sort of Mother Theresa. I would bet my life that Frogger has not given up a significant portion of his luxuries to combat malaria.

Yes, I've donated some money to environmental organizations, but I admit it's a paltry sum. I'd rather donate my time which I've done more than my share of. But I'll stop short of Frogger's ridiculous request for notarized statements.

P.S. I freely admit I don't donate money to combat malaria in Africa. I would consider such a donation a waste since the problems there stem from anarchy and lack of productivity, not malaria.

P.P.S. People in Japan are not suffering. In fact, Japan is a premeire example of a piece of land overrun with humans.

The fact that that Frogger donated some unknown amount of money to a charity that gives some money to Africa (which could be his church for all we know) does not make him some sort of Mother Theresa.
Sidebar: Mother Teresa was a fundamentalist bitch who prolonged peoples' suffering in order to "bring them closer to Jesus". She is not worthy of any respect, much less the idolatry she receives.

I thought Mother Teresa helped the poor in India,but there ya go.

He's probably donated more than I, not that you can tell from what people say about themselves on the internet
Thats the point. You cant tell. As far as you know Frogger headed the movement known as greenpeace. Then again...
No point in making assumptions.

P.P.S. People in Japan are not suffering. In fact, Japan is a premeire example of a piece of land overrun with humans.
Actually, a lot of their ancestry is being destroyed to make way for housing development's. I'd say they're giving up a lot for a place to live. Families who have lived in the same place for well over 300 years are now losing their heritage/birth right.
That sounds like suffering to me.

They're not moving animals out of wildlife reserves. They're moving entire families with several generations of history out of their homes.
Doesn't seem right.

Thats the point. You cant tell. As far as you know Frogger headed the movement known as greenpeace. Then again...
No point in making assumptions.


Frogger's been posting here a long time. You don't need video evidence to form ideas based on what people say.

They're really not. I'd kill all the bald eagles in the world, by myself, if it saved the lives of just five people, much less ten thousand.
That could could possibly be either the most arrogant or maybe just plain stupid statement you have made(that I''ve read)..

People breed like freakin' rats with little or no regard of the effect it has on the planet, our resources and other forms of life.
When we should be more self aware, you make a statement like that makes us seem self important and that just sucks!

I understand that the frog feels he/she is "toadly right" but more often that not is wrong but you are usually more informed and less arrogant.
And btw frogs should pay even more attention to human impact on the environment as they are considered the "canary in our mine" and are dying off at an alarming rate.

We should be sharing the planet in harmony and making an effort to minimize our impact. Not exploiting it and certainly not sacrificing other life forms because we deem our presence more relevant.

Abu Dhabi has started building what it says is the worlds first zero-carbon,
zero-waste car free city.
Masdar City will cost $22bn take eight years to build and be home to 55,000
people and 1,500 business's.

The city will be mostly be powered by solar energy and residents will move in travel pods running on magnetic tracks.

Abu Dhabi has one of the worlds biggest per capita carbon footprints and sceptics fear Masdar may just be a fig leaf for the oil rich Gulf emirate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7237672.stm

Abu Dhabi has started building what it says is the worlds first zero-carbon,
zero-waste car free city.
Masdar City will cost $22bn take eight years to build and be home to 55,000
people and 1,500 business's.

The city will be mostly be powered by solar energy and residents will move in travel pods running on magnetic tracks.

Abu Dhabi has one of the worlds biggest per capita carbon footprints and sceptics fear Masdar may just be a fig leaf for the oil rich Gulf emirate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7237672.stm

Wish I could afford 20 grand in solar panels for my house. I'd make everything electric. Heat, stove, hot water heater... Everything.
I'd love to have a 5 dollar a month utility bill.
I'd get a well dug, it'd be awesome.

It seems Leper feels free to make assumptions abut other people with no factual information to back them up. Fine, I claim the same right to make assumptions about Leper. Leper is another of those phonies who talk a good game and do little or nothing of substance. Leper talks about sending money to Africa but when asked how much he sends, he pleads poverty and admits the amount is zilch. He justifies this by saying he is paying off college loans. He seems to conveniently forget that I paid not only my college expenses but also those of four children.

Taking a cue from Leper I have decided he is a phony who is all potatoes and no meat.

He seems to conveniently forget that I paid not only my college expenses but also those of four children.
Did you do it in your twenties, too? Pretty impressive. Must've got a real early start.

Did I pay my own college expenses in my 20's? Yes, I did. I also took responsibility for raising four younger brothers, a younger sister and a mother who was in ill health. My father died when I was twenty five and because of a bad heart from childhood he had no life insurance. I not only paid off my college loans but took on a family of six.

What have you done with your life, Nappy? Other than quitting the military, quitting college and quitting every job you have ever held?

Did you do it in your twenties, too? Pretty impressive. Must've got a real early start.

C'mon Nap, all twenty-somethings should be able to pay off today's tuition for undergrad and graduate school within 3 years!

Did I pay my own college expenses in my 20's? Yes, I did. I also took responsibility for raising four younger brothers, a younger sister and a mother who was in ill health. My father died when I was twenty five and because of a bad heart from childhood he had no life insurance. I not only paid off my college loans but took on a family of six.



AND you were donating money for malaria in Africa! Right. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you also haven't heard that tuition has inflated a tad since the 60's. And are you including grad school in your assessment?

For me to pay off my loans in my twenties, I would have had to made six digits coming out of school (and yes, I worked during all of my school, and yes, I had scholarships and some financial aid).

Did I pay my own college expenses in my 20's? Yes, I did. I also took responsibility for raising four younger brothers, a younger sister and a mother who was in ill health. My father died when I was twenty five and because of a bad heart from childhood he had no life insurance. I not only paid off my college loans but took on a family of six.
So, in other words, you did nothing of import.

So, in other words, you did nothing of import.

lol Thats funny Nap.

Although I think the point was, he did more then you. Which was or is less then nothing. lol

It's real easy to deride the accomplishments of a 24 year-old.

For fucksake.

I went to the bother of digging out an Environmental issue, about an idea to build a city carbon free, you guys could at least read it in between sparing bouts-thank you.

For fucksake.

I went to the bother of digging out an Environmental issue, about an idea to build a city carbon free, you guys could at least read it in between sparing bouts-thank you.
Sorry, there, paul, your post kind of got buried.

I'd like to be excited, but I'm also a bit cynical. It's a great idea, but I have doubts as to the ability of the people dreaming it up to keep the green ideas in mind and not sacrifice them at the first signs of trouble.

I mean, honestly, who gets the idea of, "Let's help the environment!" then in the next breath says, "Let's build a city!"? It's a cool idea, sure, but I bet ya it's just a bunch of developers capitalizing on the whole green thing to make shit-tons of money by marking everything up sevenfold their normal prices.

Yeah Id go along with that. Tho as an experiment, I will/should be interesting to see how it pans out.

On another note.

In Europe there are a few sites were controlled living conditions are constructed to study different ways of living a carbon free lifestyle.
The Eden project in England being an example.

Are there any such places ie biospheres were this type of study is carried out in the US ?

Well, there's the Earthship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship) idea, that's the only thing I can come up with offhand. But that's more focused on sustainability, which is, in my opinion, a much better way to think about it than "carbon neutral."

For fucksake.

I went to the bother of digging out an Environmental issue, about an idea to build a city carbon free, you guys could at least read it in between sparing bouts-thank you.

I tried to help promote it by talking about a $5 utility bill :D

I tried to help promote it by talking about a $5 utility bill :D
Yeah I know you did man thanks.

Yeah I know you did man thanks.
Your welcome lol

In Europe there are a few sites were controlled living conditions are constructed to study different ways of living a carbon free lifestyle.
The Eden project in England being an example.

Are there any such places ie biospheres were this type of study is carried out in the US ?


europe is far more forward in study and open to trying to become more green in survival. they learned the hard way for a much longer period of time.
there are almost no wild places left in europe. most of the water is undrinkable due to industrialization, war, etc.. not enough trees left , thus more chances of flooding. i could go on but i won't.
america has some time to pull its head out of its ass, but it takes the greed factor of corporations to change it.

Abu Dhabi has started building what it says is the worlds first zero-carbon,
zero-waste car free city.
Masdar City will cost $22bn take eight years to build and be home to 55,000
people and 1,500 business's.

The city will be mostly be powered by solar energy and residents will move in travel pods running on magnetic tracks.

Abu Dhabi has one of the worlds biggest per capita carbon footprints and sceptics fear Masdar may just be a fig leaf for the oil rich Gulf emirate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7237672.stm

Can we banish Al Gore and his worshippers to that city for life?

Did I pay my own college expenses in my 20's? Yes, I did. I also took responsibility for raising four younger brothers, a younger sister and a mother who was in ill health. My father died when I was twenty five and because of a bad heart from childhood he had no life insurance. I not only paid off my college loans but took on a family of six.

So, in other words, you did nothing of import.

You know, sometimes you're a real ass, Nappy. You, a person who has done diddly squat with his life and who cares for no one but himself dares say caring for one's family is doing nothing worth while.

Your entire life has been nothing worthwhile. Your college experience was nothing worthwhile. Your military experience was nothing worth while. Your job history has been nothing worth while. In short, your life, to this point, has been nothing worth while.

LOL, You get what you give, Frogger.

Sidebar: Mother Teresa was a fundamentalist bitch who prolonged peoples' suffering in order to "bring them closer to Jesus". She is not worthy of any respect, much less the idolatry she receives.
that's all that can be done. not a single life has ever been saved.

LOL, You get what you give, Frogger.
dude! you are so screwed!
http://www.sgilpin.com/screwed.jpg

If that was just screwed into this guy, shouldn't his shirt be twisted in the other direction?

Lord help me, I'm such a nerd.

http://www.sgilpin.com/screwed.jpg

Sidebar: Mother Teresa was a fundamentalist bitch who prolonged peoples' suffering in order to "bring them closer to Jesus". She is not worthy of any respect, much less the idolatry she receives.
Been reading Hitchens again? Did she "prolong the suffering" of the orphans? Why do people like CH try so hard to demonize the work of someone who has gave their life providing service to the sick, dying, and destitute?

It is easy to post "blame" on the actions of another person in relation to their motives and religious ideals. I'm no Catholic, actually I have many problems with Catholic dogma and many Christian beliefs... but there is a lot of good people who sacrifice the majority of their lives trying to help others. If they do so under the auspices of religion are they always wrong?

I've got a question... What has the great Chris Hitchens done to help humanity? Wrote books and gave interviews? Maybe made some cash on those endeavors?


That's what I thought.

If that was just screwed into this guy, shouldn't his shirt be twisted in the other direction?

Lord help me, I'm such a nerd.

http://www.sgilpin.com/screwed.jpg
You are correct Lionel... welcome to the ranks of anal-retentive nerds. :)

If that was just screwed into this guy, shouldn't his shirt be twisted in the other direction?
yes, unless he tried to take it out.

Lord help me, I'm such a nerd.
you're just figuring this out?:confused:

http://www.sgilpin.com/screwed.jpg

Been reading Hitchens again? Did she "prolong the suffering" of the orphans? Why do people like CH try so hard to demonize the work of someone who has gave their life providing service to the sick, dying, and destitute?

It is easy to post "blame" on the actions of another person in relation to their motives and religious ideals. I'm no Catholic, actually I have many problems with Catholic dogma and many Christian beliefs... but there is a lot of good people who sacrifice the majority of their lives trying to help others. If they do so under the auspices of religion are they always wrong?

I've got a question... What has the great Chris Hitchens done to help humanity? Wrote books and gave interviews? Maybe made some cash on those endeavors?


That's what I thought.
Why are we suddenly talking about Christopher Hitchens, of all people? I don't understand how he's relevant to this topic.

We're all environmentalists. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

The UN should be able to call it a crime when over deforestation occurs.

If that was just screwed into this guy, shouldn't his shirt be twisted in the other direction?

Lord help me, I'm such a nerd.

http://www.sgilpin.com/screwed.jpg

No its screwed in there right and tight.