And our demographic is just the beginning!
" From 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent, to 17.6 deaths per 100,000 people, up from 13.7. Although suicide rates are growing among both middle-aged men and women, far more men take their own lives. The suicide rate for middle-aged men was 27.3 deaths per 100,000, while for women it was 8.1 deaths per 100,000. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html?_r=0And not in a good way, either.
...is when they want to break the USPS by requiring the Postal Service to pre-fund 75 years of future retiree healthcare costs in only ten years. Or when they wring their hands over the future of Social Security & Medicare.
Great. They'll save the P.O. and S.S. but there won't be a fucking Earth. Don't they give a fuck about their own grandchildren? No, not as long as the Koch Bros. are fucking them in the ass.
For holding the WH, Senate and House at the beginning of Barry's first term and doing doodily squat to save the earth and protect our grandchildren from certain demise
Why should we care about your offspring?
Where does the USPS find funding for these BS commercial?
And our demographic is just the beginning!
" From 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent, to 17.6 deaths per 100,000 people, up from 13.7. Although suicide rates are growing among both middle-aged men and women, far more men take their own lives. The suicide rate for middle-aged men was 27.3 deaths per 100,000, while for women it was 8.1 deaths per 100,000. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html?_r=0
Russia is one of few major countries in the World with a declining population growth .
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=24
Population is like air in a balloon , air is necessary for a balloon to function , the problem with air in balloons , it can only hold so much before the balloon self destructs .
World Population
0 -1850 1 Billion
1850 -1930 2 billion
1930 -1975 4 billion
1975-1987 5 Billion
1987-2000 6 Billion
2000-2014 7 billion
If the rich suddenly shared all their money equally , more cars would be sold , more oil and other energy would be consumed , more food would be produced and wasted , more waste would turn into toxic dumps , more water would be polluted , more factories would be required to build trinkets , more smog would cover the earth , less land would be available ,.............. the end
would be here quicker than you can imagine in your Utopian mind .
Population explosion is the biggest problem facing the World , not income inequality or warm weather .
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population
Sometimes the high school dropout makes a lot more sense than the guys with doctorates. This is one of those times, IMO you nailed it.
This whole study isn't about "saving the world" it's about wealth redistribution. Faulty foundations build faulty conclusions and this study might as well be built on a foundation of Jello.
Thank you very much , it is a rare day I hear a compliment from a guy .
Most of them are extremely jealous of my way with their women . 
I'll admit The Queens English and Grammar are not my strong suits , that fact combined with my not so
subtle sarcasm , confuses many men .
It looks like I copied your previous reply to willy . I swear I didn't read your post before I replied .
I was doing something else for the last couple hours , got off track and didn't post message .
I actually had to log back on when I tried to post , my log in timed out .
Plus I am still moderated at my own request , adding more time delay .
I've never cheated on a test in my life , though I didn't snitch on smart kids in school , when they were copying my Math and Science test answers .
I feel sorry for the A student that sat behind me in advanced mathematical logic class .
His grade dropped to an F when I quit school .
I have no doubt willy failed at basic math .
Why else would he believe raising minimum wage would help untrained entry level workers , for more than a week or two .
One of these days when I have more time to put it in simple terms they can understand , I'm going to show DA and willy why one and one doesn't always add up to two .
I would have to be a genius to explain something to AF, in terms he could understand , no matter how much time I had .
to a casual observer it might look like I had copied you, not the other way around as my post went "live" before yours, but we came to the same conclusion independently of each other.
As for AF, you would have to be either a genius or a fellow moron to explain anything to that moron in terms he could understand.
And they hold true within their domain. Same as speed of light holding Tru in vacuum but changing speed in other mediums. You're attempt at disproving math and science will never work 
But hey I won't dismiss the small possibility that you may succeed. Heck there's a small chance that monkeys typing randomly on a typewriter can randomly type Shakespeare's work. It's possible! However the chance of that happening would take a length of time greater than the age of the universe.
I do agree with your post on Russia tho. Not bad for a white dude. LOL
and the poor have babies?
I personally never bought in to the "family" ethos and so I never procreated. I always felt there were already far too many suckers led down that path of self imposed economic slavery.
Vanity! It's a peculiar trait with some decidedly counterproductive results.
If the rich suddenly shared all their money equally , more cars would be sold , more oil and other energy would be consumed , more food would be produced and wasted , more waste would turn into toxic dumps , more water would be polluted , more factories would be required to build trinkets , more smog would cover the earth , less land would be available ,.............. the end
would be here quicker than you can imagine in your Utopian mind .
Population explosion is the biggest problem facing the World , not income inequality or warm weather .
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
I tend to agree with the first one that calls into question the objectivity of the study itself, and calls bullshit on many of the base assumptions of the study, not to mention the conclusions,
The most hilarious response is the second one by some idiot by the name of Brian Andrew. Read it and tell me it does't remind you of our own village idiot AF.
"unfortunately, i believe this is all very possible & most likely will happen. the inequality of income/resources & standards to live decently is unmistakenbly true. 99.9% have the wealth & .01%(usa) are just surviving. renewable energy/non-nuclear is essential for our survival(climate change) but also our economy. fossil fuels run a DINASOR economy, renewables/research would & does create a more modern economy & more jobs for the new infastructures needed for that modern economy. romans & mayans/bad example-we're still here, climate change caused by man is a 97% consensual fact, there is no rewind button if we continue our current fossil fuel economy. if u believe this is untrue, u r either unread or in denial out of fear,income or greed?"
He might not mangle the English language quite as badly as AF, but he comes close.
I will concede that we are stretching the ability of the planet to sustain us, and that population growth is our biggest problem facing us, but wealth redistribution won't solve a thing. The ultra rich don't stockpile necessities and giving everybody on the planet a flat screen isn't going to solve the problem of a limited food and water supply and an ever growing population, mainly in the underdeveloped countries least able to support the population they already have.
My prediction is that our first major test will not be food or energy, but water. Picture any major city in the world running out of fresh water, it is a real possibility and the consequences would be catastrophic.
In the 60s there was a best selling book "Population Bomb" that predicted worldwide famine in the 70s. In the 80s acid rain would kill us all. In the 90s the rainforests were burning and the world was ending a week from Tuesday. It's always something.
Remember that tool Ted Danson and Greenpeace running around with their hair on fire back in the 80's about the seas being totally devoid of life by 2000?
Or the other environmental nut jobs saying we were going to run out of oil? It's bullshit. How do I know? Its b/c it's ALWAYS bullshit.
I worry about the economy, and jobs and shitty laws like Obummercare...not something that may or may not happen in 2050 or 2100.
Can somebody get these guys some rockets so they can get back to work.
the global warming dogma then I don't know what will.
Wealth redistribution, leading to increased consumerism can do nothing but worsen the effects that man contributes to his own demise.
NASA should stick to their original charter.
Let's start with a little experiment.
Does increased CO2 heat the atmosphere? Watch and find out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
Has the CO2 in our atmosphere increased? Click the view the graph.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/graph-co2-1200x720.png
What happens to a planet the size of earth, when CO2 levels go sky high? Take a look at Venus. Venus has very high levels of CO2 in it's atmosphere, and the surface temperature of Venus is just shy of 900 degrees Fahrenheit; hot enough to melt some metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Why does income inequality matter in this equation? Because the more economic inequality there is, the more dysfunctional this nation's democratic processes are. The less responsive the government becomes to the wishes of the People, who might have a vested interest in NOT DYING.
Now you can bury your head in the sand if you want, and pretend that tomorrow isn't going to be any different than today. But every year, the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere just keeps on increasing. It doesn't take a NASA engineer to figure out what will eventually happen if this trend continues.
Take a good hard look at the image below fellas. That's a ticking time bomb staring your right in the face. And when it goes off, this planet will be sterilized
Willy explain this http://www.webqc.org/balance.php?reaction=C%2BO2%3DCO2
... isn't there always going to be more O2 and less C, present in CO2?
Does increased CO2 heat the atmosphere? Watch and find out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
Has the CO2 in our atmosphere increased? Click the view the graph.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/graph-co2-1200x720.png
What happens to a planet the size of earth, when CO2 levels go sky high? Take a look at Venus. Venus has very high levels of CO2 in it's atmosphere, and the surface temperature of Venus is just shy of 900 degrees Fahrenheit; hot enough to melt some metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Why does income inequality matter in this equation? Because the more economic inequality there is, the more dysfunctional this nation's democratic processes are. The less responsive the government becomes to the wishes of the People, who might have a vested interest in NOT DYING.
Now you can bury your head in the sand if you want, and pretend that tomorrow isn't going to be any different than today. But every year, the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere just keeps on increasing. It doesn't take a NASA engineer to figure out what will eventually happen if this trend continues.
Take a good hard look at the image below fellas. That's a ticking time bomb staring your right in the face. And when it goes off, this planet will be sterilized.
Venus isn't a very accurate model it being 1/3 closer to the sun... Has CO2 ever been higher then it is now? It is estimated that it was 250-350 times higher to melt snowball earth 650 million yrs ago.
"The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere."
The fact is we have very little control of CO2 levels worldwide. If we (the world) stopped all carbon emissions today it would take 1000 yrs to have any true effect. We'd be better served developing ways to remove CO2 ourselves. Also Methane gas is way more dangerous as a green house gas and being released in unprecedented amounts since 1980. Currently it amounts to roughly 9% of all our green house gas emissions. "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period."
What we as a nation are doing today is like trying to dam a river by throwing pebbles into it. Is the cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions worth it? Esp when most of the rest of the world doesn't? Or should we figure out a way to remove co2 from our atmosphere?
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-emissions-carbon-dioxide-earth-centuries.html
http://www.zero-carbon-or-climate-catastrophe.org/zero-carbon-science.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
Does increased CO2 heat the atmosphere? Watch and find out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
Has the CO2 in our atmosphere increased? Click the view the graph.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/graph-co2-1200x720.png
What happens to a planet the size of earth, when CO2 levels go sky high? Take a look at Venus. Venus has very high levels of CO2 in it's atmosphere, and the surface temperature of Venus is just shy of 900 degrees Fahrenheit; hot enough to melt some metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Why does income inequality matter in this equation? Because the more economic inequality there is, the more dysfunctional this nation's democratic processes are. The less responsive the government becomes to the wishes of the People, who might have a vested interest in NOT DYING.
Now you can bury your head in the sand if you want, and pretend that tomorrow isn't going to be any different than today. But every year, the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere just keeps on increasing. It doesn't take a NASA engineer to figure out what will eventually happen if this trend continues.
Take a good hard look at the image below fellas. That's a ticking time bomb staring your right in the face. And when it goes off, this planet will be sterilized.
Why didn't the Dems address this issue when they had a chance?
At least the Republicans are consistent. They don't think GW is a big deal and thus don't make it a legislative issue.
The Dems on the other hand, bitch, cry, moan, yell and scream Mother Earth will soon come to an end if we don't act but when they had a chance to pass legislation that Repubs couldn't have stopped, they did jack squat. Why?
By the Dems inaction, they are telling the public that GW is a non issue.
America should not import coal to China.
Political parties do not support their own issues.
Besides being as enigmatic as ever, you don't import things "to" another country, you export to, and import from.
I liked you better when you were doing a better job concealing your identity.
How ever, so am I. Do you ever hear a Democrat say "America should not import coal to china" ?
noun
(ˈɪmpɔːt Pronunciation for 
(often plural)
goods (visible imports) or services (invisible imports) that are bought from foreign countries
I was not using verb "import" in the technical, or legal sense.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/importer
And Jethro Bodine used to brag about his fifth grade education, I am guessing they both got further along in school than you.
You are the dumbest person to come on this board since Big Vern
"For those of you that would argue that AF was/is dumber, this is true, but he was already here when Vern came along"
Referencing a television character from a program that was dropped by the network, well before my birth.
Your whole argument is based on a word, that I have never used in a conversation with a real person. That's right I do not export, or import goods or services from/in to any country. The words import and export are insignificant to me, in real life.... The only place I live.
and I am willing to wager that even Quad with his ninth grade education can use the word import properly.
If you can't even use a word that most of us learned how to use properly in about the third grade, why should we take you seriously on any subject? I suppose you don't know the proper use of the word slander either, do you?
come on, don't make AF work any harder to keep his SPOTY title.
and do not produce/market energy, agriculture, or alcohol products. 5th grade is probably the last time I participated in a discussion on US exports.
See if you get it right!
That's what it takes now to pass legislation.
Gridlock is best for the country .
Otherwise one party or the other will stuff their favorite desserts down our throats , to the
detriment of Americans as a whole .
Re: When was the last time the Dems had a supper majority?
That's what it takes now to pass legislation.
Your post sounds almost exactly like something I would say, only this time there is no doubt that you said it first. Well said it first today at least, I have been a fan of gridlock ever since I figured out that neither party can be trusted with any real power.
When one party has full control or when they actually work together we end up with shit like The Patriot Act and Obamacare. Yes, count me in as a fan of gridlock, and fuck those politicians who want to "get things done at all costs" usually the cost is way too high and the taxpayers are the ones stuck with the bill.
Since they still only managed to ram ObamaCare down our throats and failed with everything else they want to change the definition of "super majority"
Lets put it this way if the GOP ever gets the same numbers in both the House and Senate as the Dems did in 09, I guarantee you they will call it a supermajority.
Obama put a fair amount of money into developing renewable energy. What did the Republicans do? They spent 2 years screaming Solyndra. Or did you forget about that?
People have been predicting the End of the World As We Know It since the dawn of time. It's always the same crap: Too many people, too few resources to support them, blah blah blah....see the "work" of Thomas Malthus, among others.
Never taken into account is the tremendous ability of mankind to innovate, use natural resources more effectively, etc.
"Too many people" is never a problem. "Too many bad people" is a problem--but that one is solvable.