"The law is based on common morality" Mandatory Sentencing, Death Penalty, Abortion, Affirmative Action, Seperation of Church and State, the War in Iraq... Only a few issues that are supported by law that many Americans would be on opposit sides of the moral fence. Rather than saving 30 cent on dish soap so that Mr.Wal-Mart can crap in a dimond encrusted toilet, why not support mom and pop?
I take all my cash (coins too) put it in a little sac, tie a string to it, swing it around until I hit people like Von Skippy who use ther cards for small purchases and hold the rest of us up.
Thank you Becki I am not interested in a nice head nodding conversation. But polite? Why not? We can disagree to our core and have great conversations doing it. People resort to insults in online situations when they most likely would not do so face to face.
My reference to polenta was simply a responce to JC's statment concerning corn: "corn isn’t meant to be eaten by humans. There’s a reason why it cannot be digested by our immune system." I supose my overly dramatic response was unwarented, but I was making a point.
While you feel that my refrence to HFCS was made from a soapbox, I vew it simply as fact. HFCS comes from corn and is eaten, digested and matabolized by humans. North Americans consume massive amounts of the stuff. Calories + sedintary lifestyle= Fat. (Too simplistic?) If you want argue that HFCS is not a major contributing factor to obesity. By all means please do.
This is from the neatoroma post (above) "...with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies." My only argument is that biofuels, in all their varied forms and abillity to fill niches, cannot REPLACE oil at current rates of consumption for the reasons I stated above. Large scale reliance on biofuels is not viable.
Beyond that, I agree whole-hartedly with your last paragraph.
hey becki typo = a lack of civility? "Simplistic sheep think" Why not expand and explain where I have gone wrong rather than simply spewing insults from behind a keyboard?
Sid please forgive me if in my simple sheep mind I have simplified the matter. Wouldn't the global rate of oil consumption require massive amounts of arible land be dedicated to fuel crops? Even with a wholesale conversion of personal vehicles to diesel subtitute engines?
More elequent than me: "It is in our best interest to preemptively embark on a revolutionary change that will lead us away from oil dependency rather than drag our feet and suffer the ramifications of becoming growingly dependent on a diminishing resource." http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
Mandatory Sentencing, Death Penalty, Abortion, Affirmative Action, Seperation of Church and State, the War in Iraq...
Only a few issues that are supported by law that many Americans would be on opposit sides of the moral fence.
Rather than saving 30 cent on dish soap so that Mr.Wal-Mart can crap in a dimond encrusted toilet, why not support mom and pop?
Thanks for taking the bait.
Talk about suspension of disbelief!
I am not interested in a nice head nodding conversation. But polite? Why not? We can disagree to our core and have great conversations doing it. People resort to insults in online situations when they most likely would not do so face to face.
My reference to polenta was simply a responce to JC's statment concerning corn: "corn isn’t meant to be eaten by humans. There’s a reason why it cannot be digested by our immune system."
I supose my overly dramatic response was unwarented, but I was making a point.
While you feel that my refrence to HFCS was made from a soapbox, I vew it simply as fact. HFCS comes from corn and is eaten, digested and matabolized by humans. North Americans consume massive amounts of the stuff. Calories + sedintary lifestyle= Fat. (Too simplistic?)
If you want argue that HFCS is not a major contributing factor to obesity. By all means please do.
This is from the neatoroma post (above)
"...with the discovery that it may be the ideal biofuel crop, an alternative to fossil fuels for a world dangerously dependent on oil supplies."
My only argument is that biofuels, in all their varied forms and abillity to fill niches, cannot REPLACE oil at current rates of consumption for the reasons I stated above. Large scale reliance on biofuels is not viable.
Beyond that, I agree whole-hartedly with your last paragraph.
typo = a lack of civility?
"Simplistic sheep think" Why not expand and explain where I have gone wrong rather than simply spewing insults from behind a keyboard?
Sid
please forgive me if in my simple sheep mind I have simplified the matter.
Wouldn't the global rate of oil consumption require massive amounts of arible land be dedicated to fuel crops? Even with a wholesale conversion of personal vehicles to diesel subtitute engines?
More elequent than me:
"It is in our best interest to preemptively embark on a revolutionary change that will lead us away from oil dependency rather than drag our feet and suffer the ramifications of becoming growingly dependent on a diminishing resource."
http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
try engaging some civility.