Nixon was even more important for the environment back in the late 60's when he said that we need to be 100% nuclear energy by 2000, or close to saying that. If we were we would not be in all the oil wars and in control of our country much better. They got rid of Nixon, and he wasn't that bad of a president. But the neo-cons didn't like his EPA, knowing to much about Cuba and Fidel, nuclear stance and his wanting to get out of Vietnam which he eventually led us to and championed. But the neo-cons got him booted out. Eventually got their guy put in - Ronnie Reagan.
One problem. Rachel Carson lied about the effect of DDT on humans. You can drink the stuff. She wasn't getting traction with the impact on birds so she falsified research. You want to talk to people who really hate her, try malaria research scientists.
Check it out: RE: the attending, associated "brou-ha-ha"--it has become abundantly clear to many, if not most-> the relatively obscure preponderance of "generic" ippum soap has, or WILL have had little, if any, impact (at least at that especially inconclusive stage) on the dubious, yet ever-increas-ing selectivity, as it were, of just how much of it should necessarily be distributed 'forthwith'--or AT ALL for that matter, given the near-universally anticipated (future) conditions currently being ever so cautiously examined via multiple experts' professional-IF somewhat occasionally downright unwieldy analyses....(a bit harsh, but there it is).
I, for one, happen to wholeheartedly agree-at least for the present-that to substantially interfere, or even vaguely object to the (presumed) myriad solutions 'on the table', well...THAT notion indeed may also potentially influence the resulting final outcome in one or more clearly unintended ways... NONE of which will be forthcoming until ANY portion of this preposterous (if misdirected) invective might clearly be understood..as if THAT in itself were indeed WHATSOEVER possible! I have my doubts...
I REST my case, such as it is, or at the VERY least as it "appears" to be...(and aren't you glad)?
Nixon was even more important for the environment back in the late 60's when he said that we need to be 100% nuclear energy by 2000, or close to saying that. If we were we would not be in all the oil wars and in control of our country much better. They got rid of Nixon, and he wasn't that bad of a president. But the neo-cons didn't like his EPA, knowing to much about Cuba and Fidel, nuclear stance and his wanting to get out of Vietnam which he eventually led us to and championed. But the neo-cons got him booted out. Eventually got their guy put in - Ronnie Reagan.
One problem. Rachel Carson lied about the effect of DDT on humans. You can drink the stuff. She wasn't getting traction with the impact on birds so she falsified research. You want to talk to people who really hate her, try malaria research scientists.
Check it out: RE: the attending, associated "brou-ha-ha"--it has become abundantly clear to many, if not most-> the relatively obscure preponderance of "generic" ippum soap has, or WILL have had little, if any, impact (at least at that especially inconclusive stage) on the dubious, yet ever-increas-ing selectivity, as it were, of just how much of it should necessarily be distributed 'forthwith'--or AT ALL for that matter, given the near-universally anticipated (future) conditions currently being ever so cautiously examined via multiple experts' professional-IF somewhat occasionally downright unwieldy analyses....(a bit harsh, but there it is).
I, for one, happen to wholeheartedly agree-at least for the present-that to substantially interfere, or even vaguely object to the (presumed) myriad solutions 'on the table', well...THAT notion indeed may also potentially influence the resulting final outcome in one or more clearly unintended ways... NONE of which will be forthcoming until ANY portion of this preposterous (if misdirected) invective might clearly be understood..as if THAT in itself were indeed WHATSOEVER possible! I have my doubts...
I REST my case, such as it is, or at the VERY least as it "appears" to be...(and aren't you glad)?
GLAD, Ben? FER-SURE! Overwhelmingly so! (Nonsensical, outrageous crappy crap-oh-la here). You must be SO proud...
Which young conservatives are these ideas “alive and well with”?