Tag Archives: control

Why do you think kids seem to have more health problems than 20-30 years ago?

Like allergies are just outta control, I’m only 26 but I knew of one person my whole school life that was allergic to anything and that was bees. My son is in kindergarden and out of 21 kids in his class, 3 have allergies. Hell I didn’t even know what gluten was til I was 18!

So many kids have autism, ADD, ADHD and whatever else. With all our advances in medicine and science why do you think this is happening?

I think alot of women are having children who wouldn’t have been able to 30 years ago thanks to invitro and other fertility treatments. Might be enviromental. Maybe we’re all de-evolving from the lack of need for survival skills. Maybe we’ll get stronger again as a species if we revert back to the stone age, survival of the fitest.

Democrats are taking freedom and putting government in control, Trans fats, smoking, spanking ,what else can w

Bill introduced to ban incandescent bulbs
East Bay Business Times – 4:57 PM PST Tuesday

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine believes he has a bright idea: to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2012.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys, introduced the bill Tuesday, claiming the ban of incandescent bulbs in favor of energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs would “cut greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers money.”
Replacing a 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent bulb would offer the same amount of light but save 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and consumers about $55 over the life of the bulb (based on 750 hours of life for the incandescent bulb compared to the 10,000 hours for a fluorescent bulb), according to the Rocky Mountain Institute. The California Energy Commission estimates that eliminating incandescent bulbs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.82 million metric tons per year.
“Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications,” Levine said. “Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of energy they receive into light.”
Wal-Mart has a goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs this year. Philips has announced plans to stop making incandescent bulbs by 2016.
Democrats are taking freedom and putting government in control, Trans fats, smoking, spanking ,what else can we add. Democrats will eliminate “Land of the Free” and “Home of the Brave”

How will Evo Morales’s expropriation of Bolivia’s natural gas, oil and mining affect the world?

“The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources,” Morales, Bolivia’s first Indian president, said in a speech from the San Alberto field operated by Petrobras in association with Repsol and Total SA.

State television aired footage of soldiers and police standing guard outside some gas installations and petroleum company offices in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, where much of the industry is based.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said troops were sent to 56 locations nationwide.

“The looting by the foreign companies has ended,” Morales declared.

Is birth control, homosexuality, and suicide immoral?

I’m not talking from a religious standpoint here, but from a completely biological, “Law of Nature” standpoint.

Known Laws of Nature for Humans and Animals:

1. Survival
2. Breeding

Can it be assumed a person, or animal for that matter, only has two known objectives (see above) in life in order to live in accordance to the laws of nature?

Breaking the Laws of Nature:

Birth Control (failing to breed)
Homosexuality (failing to breed)
Suicide (failing to survive)
Etc.

If this is the case wouldn’t preventing those objectives (see above) be seen as the only tangible evidence of immoral behavior?

More to the point wouldn’t things that preserve those objectives be seen as your moral duty or rights?

For example: The right to kill someone attempting to kill you or others. The right to kill animals in order to provide food.

Is birth control, homosexuality, and suicide immoral?

I’m not talking from a religious standpoint here, but from a completely biological, “Law of Nature” standpoint.

Known Laws of Nature for Humans and Animals:

1. Survival
2. Breeding

Can it be assumed a person, or animal for that matter, only has two known objectives (see above) in life in order to live in accordance to the laws of nature?

Breaking the Laws of Nature:

Birth Control (failing to breed)
Homosexuality (failing to breed)
Suicide (failing to survive)
Etc.

If this is the case wouldn’t preventing those objectives (see above) be seen as the only tangible evidence of immoral behavior?

More to the point wouldn’t things that preserve those objectives be seen as your moral duty or rights?

For example: The right to kill someone attempting to kill you or others. The right to kill animals in order to provide food.