Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 so, we shouldn't try? and instead we should spend half-a-trillion dollars building factories on the moon? i'm betting that half a trillion dollars would go pretty far in the clean up. sure they're going to need some food in the meantime, but they aren't going to need twinkies, and i bet that's what they're going to be getting. and it just hacks me off. i mean, face it. agent smith was right. we're a virus. but, we're a virus with a sense of humor, and before i get too down, here's a cheery link! www.twinkiesproject.com guaranteed to make you giggle! At 03:31 AM 1/19/2004, you wrote: >Sure, it would be *nice* if we could clean things up, but unless you or >someone else has a realistic plan for achieving that, it's just not an >option. atg technical support support@... 1-800-RING ATG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 katja wrote: > so, we shouldn't try? > and instead we should spend half-a-trillion dollars building > factories on the moon? i'm betting that half a trillion dollars would > go pretty far in the clean up. sure they're going to need some food > in the meantime, but they aren't going to need twinkies, and i bet > that's what they're going to be getting. and it just hacks me off. i > mean, face it. agent smith was right. we're a virus. 1. Strawman. No one is proposing spending half a trillion dollars on moon factories, and I don't want half a trillion dollars wasted on either of those things. I oppose government space exploration altogether. If you don't like it, take it up with Heidi. 2. I doubt very much that they'll be getting twinkies, although they'll probably get the government's idea of healthful food, which isn't so great, either. That's not a problem inherent to the food-shipping idea, though. 3. This is what I mean about replying to top-posters. Me: >> Sure, it would be *nice* if we could clean things up, but unless you >> or someone else has a realistic plan for achieving that, it's just >> not an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 >so, we shouldn't try? >and instead we should spend half-a-trillion dollars building factories on >the moon? i'm betting that half a trillion dollars would go pretty far in >the clean up. And at LEAST we could stop adding to the problem ... those old coal-fired plants that are due for retrofitting (but got a reprieve via. Bush) could be retrofit, for example. Shoot, we could start building some of those " anything into oil " plants, probably at a profit, with a little incentive. PCB's are banned in a lot of countries, but mercury and other baddies are still being added to the air, by us. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Katja, Find it interesting that a week after Dennis Kucinich said in a Worldlink tv interview that the Pentagon has a trillion dollars sitting in the budget not earmarked for anything, Bush is spending half a trillion on the Moon. Now how much were the taxpayers asked for for Iraq? Hhhmmmm? > so, we shouldn't try? > and instead we should spend half-a-trillion dollars building factories on > the moon? i'm betting that half a trillion dollars would go pretty far in > the clean up. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.