AlbertHall
- Joined Jun 4, 2014
- 12,625
Or you could choose to avoid the famine etc. consequent on our careless use of resources.Death by nuclear war or death by famine. You're still dead.
Or you could choose to avoid the famine etc. consequent on our careless use of resources.Death by nuclear war or death by famine. You're still dead.
Speak for yourself. I don't use resources carelessly. In fact, I use them productively.Or you could choose to avoid the famine etc. consequent on our careless use of resources.
No my plan would be to have only 1% that number of humans to feed.Speak for yourself. I don't use resources carelessly. In fact, I use them productively.
You got a plan to feed 7.5B humans with unicorn farts?
No my plan would be to have only 1% that number of humans to feed.
Either nuclear war or global warming might achieve that aim because all governments seem to be doing their level best to avoid seeing the elephant in the room.
The United States can't rely solely on domestic oil. To prevent price spikes, Washington still needs OPEC producers to fill the gap during times of stress.
Its ok, US will always have Canada to pick on
it'll pick on both north and south, my friend ...Its ok, US will always have Canada to pick on
Leave it to CNN to find a cloud in every silver lining.Its ok, US will always have Canada to pick on
Let the price rise when/if it has to. It'll only make domestic producers -- and the US -- stronger, resulting in even more domestic supply, future lower prices, and greater geopolitical influence.The United States can't rely solely on domestic oil. To prevent price spikes, Washington still needs OPEC producers to fill the gap during times of stress.
There's something that we fully agree on ...Let the price rise when/if it has to.
Of course it is -- in the same way that air is: necessary for survival.I simply found it interesting how the oil production world market seems to be unavoidably interdependent.
Well, we haven't declared war on Canada yet. We'll leave that one to Duarte and the Philippines. Besides, I don't think there is any of Canada that we actually want... Actually I wouldn't mind giving California back to Mexico.it'll pick on both north and south, my friend ...![]()
Then you'll need a fence going north and south, besides California has already given it to them, it's a sanctuary for illegals.Well, we haven't declared war on Canada yet. We'll leave that one to Duarte and the Philippines. Besides, I don't think there is any of Canada that we actually want... Actually I wouldn't mind giving California back to Mexico.
That's one of the reasons it wouldn't be much of a loss.California has already given it to them, it's a sanctuary for illegals
I know right? Utah running second as SLC is also, could be we have to many transplants from California.That's one of the reasons it wouldn't be much of a loss.
That's becoming a big problem across the west. Texas is seeing a big influx. My sister lives in Bozeman, MT and they've seen property values skyrocket as the rich move out of California and buy their way into other nice places....could be we have to many transplants from California.