We're destroying the earth...

[rakedog]

How can you people say that there is absolutely nothing wrong. Of course there is something wrong, I NEVER said that aarticle was correct, but seriously, we did overfish in New England, we risk losing a huge oxygen supplier in the Amazon if we continue cutting down those trees, smog in cities is a big health concern, and we obviously are destroying more ecosystems from developing and expanding then any other animal that has lived on this earth

 

[rakedog]

Trees yes are being cut down, but you should blame the Brazilian government for that, not the US.

I don't see a single word in his post that suggests he's blaming the US.

 

[Giancarlo]

How can you people say that there is absolutely nothing wrong. Of course there is something wrong, I NEVER said that aarticle was correct, but seriously, we did overfish in New England, we risk losing a huge oxygen supplier in the Amazon if we continue cutting down those trees, smog in cities is a big health concern, and we obviously are destroying more ecosystems from developing and expanding then any other animal that has lived on this earth

Again little rakedog who is influenced by special interest groups, this earth has been plagued with "problems", rather try natural occurrances, far before us being here. Species have been wiped out and so forth. As far as the Amazon goes, yes I have attacked the Brazilian government for not doing anything (in fact they shouldn't be doing it, because the land isn't suitable for farming). Smog is being reduced in the developed world too. You are using typical greenist attacks. Natural occurrances of this earth have destroyed a lot more then we ever will.

 

[Giancarlo]

I don't think I will accept what you radical greens say. I do recognize what we may doing is not perfect, but you guys completely blow things out of proportion. Just like you cheered the murder of Terri Sciavo.

 

[rakedog]

Brazilian government for not doing anything (in fact they shouldn't be doing it, because the land isn't suitable for farming).

Are you suggesting they shouldn't try to rebuild it and protect what's left of the forest, or that they shouldn't cut down the forest. I did a paper on this subject, I know what I'm talking about. That forest produces herbs and medicenes that, if harvested properly, would yield many times more then the timber. Plus, it would regenerate every year.

Smog is being reduced in the developed world too. You are using typical greenist attacks.

I never said it wasn't. I don't belong to any party, partly because they all have flaws, partly because I'm too young. I'm simply stating my beliefs, like it or not.

 

[Giancarlo]

Are you suggesting they shouldn't try to rebuild it and protect what's left of the forest, or that they shouldn't cut down the forest. I did a paper on this subject, I know what I'm talking about. That forest produces herbs and medicenes that, if harvested properly, would yield many times more then the timber. Plus, it would regenerate every year.

Again another greenist attack accusing me of something I never said. You people should not be influencing policy. And thank goodness you do not. I do plenty of papers on Latin America too, and this was included. I also know what I'm talking about.

I never said it wasn't. I don't belong to any party, partly because they all have flaws, partly because I'm too young. I'm simply stating my beliefs, like it or not.

Beliefs that are misfounded and delusional. You are really guillible.

 

[rakedog]

Again another greenist attack accusing me of something I never said.

Sorry, when you said:

(in fact they shouldn't be doing it, because the land isn't suitable for farming).

I wasn't sure what you meant.

If you did a paper on that, you know that the thing about herbs and medicines is true.

You are really guillible.

No, not really.

 

[Giancarlo]

I wasn't sure what you meant.

If you did a paper on that, you know that the thing about herbs and medicines is true.

What I meant was the Brazilian logging companies shouldn't be clearing rainforest because the top soil in rainforests is actually quite poor.

No, not really.

Yes you are. You take one little stinking article as gold. I bet you didn't get too high of a grade on your reports. Besides, I'm in college and I have to go more indepth in this topic.

 

[rakedog]

What I meant was the Brazilian logging companies shouldn't be clearing rainforest because the top soil in rainforests is actually quite poor.

100% agreed. They're really quite stupid, because it turns into desert land in a few years.

Yes you are.

Nope.

You take one little stinking article as gold.

Nope.

I bet you didn't get too high of a grade on your reports.

Accualy, perfect score. Teacher really liked it, because I did indeed go very indepth on the subject.

Besides, I'm in college and I have to go more indepth in this topic.

You know, just because I'm younger then you, doesn't mean that my brain should be considered nothing. I don't think I would be debating with you here today if I thought that my opinion was worthless.

 

[Giancarlo]

100% agreed. They're really quite stupid, because it turns into desert land in a few years.

I've seen it first hand when I visited the Amazon jungle myself. However, the Ecuadorian government I think was taking a bit of an effort to halt it unlike the Brazilians. But Ecuador is a small country..

You know, just because I'm younger then you, doesn't mean that my brain should be considered nothing. I don't think I would be debating with you here today if I thought that my opinion was worthless.

I didn't say your opinion was worthless. I'm saying I too have credibility in this topic. I've also seen the amazon jungle first hand. Have you?