NationStates

Climate Change was viable since its inception, it is wrong to abort something that is viable. It is evident that this is the case as no scientist has been able to disprove this. Therefore the freedom for women to choose between aborting Global Warming and not aborting it must be removed. Do you believe that aborting Climate Change is wrong, or are you agnostic on the issue? If you are not at least agnostic on the issue you are obviously part of Obama's communistic revolution which will destroy the global economy, whilst simultaneously not actually changing anything at all as he is merely more of the same. This is because despite what Obama says, it is proven that he is a compulsive liar (proof: you can't DISPROVE it, therefore it is true), meaning he is clearly both Islamic and atheistic on the position of Global Warming abortion, lying only to justify his communistic fiscal stimulus. But being atheistic is ludicrous, as you CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE if aborting Global Warming is wrong or not, we should humble ourselves towards the fact that we do not know everything in the universe. It is clear that Climate Change's bank bonus is disgustingly large, but it must not be aborted as giving women the freedom to do so is wrong, this is true as you cannot show it isn't true, and believing for certain that it isn't true like some dirty atheists do is insane.

Thoughts?

You are a genius and a wonderful person and I love you.

My head hurts now, Thanks

I wish in genuine sincerity for the person who made the original post in this thread to contract the human immunodeficiency virus in its most virulent form and, after having suffered from the resulting syndrome for decades, to suffer a most tortuous death by immolation. For only in this manner can the wroth said original post has engendered in me be abated fully.

Hydesland wrote:Climate Change was viable since its inception, it is wrong to abort something that is viable. It is evident that this is the case as no scientist has been able to disprove this. Therefore the freedom for women to choose between aborting Global Warming and not aborting it must be removed. Do you believe that aborting Climate Change is wrong, or are you agnostic on the issue? If you are not at least agnostic on the issue you are obviously part of Obama's communistic revolution which will destroy the global economy, whilst simultaneously not actually changing anything at all as he is merely more of the same. This is because despite what Obama says, it is proven that he is a compulsive liar (proof: you can't DISPROVE it, therefore it is true), meaning he is clearly both Islamic and atheistic on the position of Global Warming abortion, lying only to justify his communistic fiscal stimulus. But being atheistic is ludicrous, as you CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE if aborting Global Warming is wrong or not, we should humble ourselves towards the fact that we do not know everything in the universe. It is clear that Climate Change's bank bonus is disgustingly large, but it must not be aborted as giving women the freedom to do so is wrong, this is true as you cannot show it isn't true, and believing for certain that it isn't true like some dirty atheists do is insane.

Thoughts?

I think you're High.

Absoloute nonsense of an unparalled order. Clearly this is right wing properganda of which you yourself are a member of the famed Blitzkreig Greepeace faction of the Fundamentalist Baptist Church of Southern America. Whilst global warming itself is a defunct term which was long ago aborted by the scientific community, but still causes significant controversy in the general public, I have to say that it's general confusion surrounding the nature of the Irag Wars for oil is quite clearly associated with a right wing agenda in order to further provoke more climate minded individuals in their efforts to surpass peak oil and create yet more Johnsons Baby Oil so that they can profit when they succeed in driving forth their anti-abortion laws thus leading to a spike in the overall baby population in the globe. Evidently serious scientific action must be taken in the form of an Moral Objectivist revolution to enable the Great Chain of Industry to steer society in the right diretion away from communist fervour and Right Wing lunacy. Only the third way can see us to a new age of peace and propserity!

As such I answer "No, Yes and Maybe."

My 3rd Floor Flat wrote:Absoloute nonsense of an unparalled order. Clearly this is right wing properganda of which you yourself are a member of the famed Blitzkreig Greepeace faction of the Fundamentalist Baptist Church of Southern America. Whilst global warming itself is a defunct term which was long ago aborted by the scientific community, but still causes significant controversy in the general public, I have to say that it's general confusion surrounding the nature of the Irag Wars for oil is quite clearly associated with a right wing agenda in order to further provoke more climate minded individuals in their efforts to surpass peak oil and create yet more Johnsons Baby Oil so that they can profit when they succeed in driving forth their anti-abortion laws thus leading to a spike in the overall baby population in the globe. Evidently serious scientific action must be taken in the form of an Moral Objectivist revolution to enable the Great Chain of Industry to steer society in the right diretion away from communist fervour and Right Wing lunacy. Only the third way can see us to a new age of peace and propserity!

As such I answer "No, Yes and Maybe."

Objectivism is flawed, it is one of the two things I give an exception for in my anti abortion stance, when the life of the mother is severely threatened, and when there is objectivism. Ayn Rand failed to abort objectivism, and now the emerging unregulated free market nations have impregenated the earth with Climate Change, despite it being based on faulty evidence of WMD's in Iraq. If Climate Change continues to remain unregulated, it will again lead to a systemic crisis. We must not abort it however, we must regulate it to make sure it functions properly, we should make sure its bank bonus is subject to how well it performs in the future, I am not interested in your neoliberal agenda.

Hydesland wrote:Climate Change was viable since its inception, it is wrong to abort something that is viable. It is evident that this is the case as no scientist has been able to disprove this. Therefore the freedom for women to choose between aborting Global Warming and not aborting it must be removed. Do you believe that aborting Climate Change is wrong, or are you agnostic on the issue? If you are not at least agnostic on the issue you are obviously part of Obama's communistic revolution which will destroy the global economy, whilst simultaneously not actually changing anything at all as he is merely more of the same. This is because despite what Obama says, it is proven that he is a compulsive liar (proof: you can't DISPROVE it, therefore it is true), meaning he is clearly both Islamic and atheistic on the position of Global Warming abortion, lying only to justify his communistic fiscal stimulus. But being atheistic is ludicrous, as you CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE if aborting Global Warming is wrong or not, we should humble ourselves towards the fact that we do not know everything in the universe. It is clear that Climate Change's bank bonus is disgustingly large, but it must not be aborted as giving women the freedom to do so is wrong, this is true as you cannot show it isn't true, and believing for certain that it isn't true like some dirty atheists do is insane.

Thoughts?

That was fun. Thank you.

Nonsense. The theory of evolution by natural selection clearly states that climate change must have evolved for survival. As I have already expressed, abortion is a viable means of ensuring the survival of the species for it weeds out unfit members of the group, contributing to survival of the fittest. The evolutionary imperative states that climate change must be aborted. Moreover, Obama clearly supports evolution, since he is the savior of mankind who clearly deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. His healthcare reform plan, which will be successful and end the recession in combination with his stimulus plan, contained provisions specifically earmarked for abortion of climate change, indicating that he supports it, and since Obama was elected by a lawful majority of the American people he is obviously right to propose this, despite the collectivising implications which threaten our capitalist American society. So in conclusion, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and Source?

Czardas wrote:Nonsense. The theory of evolution by natural selection clearly states that climate change must have evolved for survival. As I have already expressed, abortion is a viable means of ensuring the survival of the species for it weeds out unfit members of the group, contributing to survival of the fittest. The evolutionary imperative states that climate change must be aborted. Moreover, Obama clearly supports evolution, since he is the savior of mankind who clearly deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. His healthcare reform plan, which will be successful and end the recession in combination with his stimulus plan, contained provisions specifically earmarked for abortion of climate change, indicating that he supports it, and since Obama was elected by a lawful majority of the American people he is obviously right to propose this, despite the collectivising implications which threaten our capitalist American society. So in conclusion, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and Source?

*head asplodes*

I'm sorry, what? i don't want that pile of shit they call reform.

I don't know what to choose

Strykla wrote:What does abortion have to do with climate change?

to prevent the non believers from reproducing?

The Republic of Lanos wrote:

Czardas wrote:Nonsense. The theory of evolution by natural selection clearly states that climate change must have evolved for survival. As I have already expressed, abortion is a viable means of ensuring the survival of the species for it weeds out unfit members of the group, contributing to survival of the fittest. The evolutionary imperative states that climate change must be aborted. Moreover, Obama clearly supports evolution, since he is the savior of mankind who clearly deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. His healthcare reform plan, which will be successful and end the recession in combination with his stimulus plan, contained provisions specifically earmarked for abortion of climate change, indicating that he supports it, and since Obama was elected by a lawful majority of the American people he is obviously right to propose this, despite the collectivising implications which threaten our capitalist American society. So in conclusion, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and Source?

*head asplodes*

I'm sorry, what? i don't want that pile of shit they call reform.

The power of evolution compels you! Besides, if we allow gays to marry, prayer can be removed from public schools in accordance with the constitution, and therefore unleash healthcare reform's power to turn America away from the grip of capitalism and towards a brighter, more environmentally friendly future in which the banks can be aborted!

This is madness!

Man-made Global Warming is just a bunch of crap.

This is one of the best opening posts I've ever seen.

I've always wondered what it would be like when Hydes posted High, it certainly didnt disappoint,

Maurepas wrote:I've always wondered what it would be like when Hydes posted High, it certainly didnt disappoint,

was wondering that too if Czar was smoking funny stuff today...

Kalakda wrote:Man-made Global Warming is just a bunch of crap.

Psst. read the thread. It's a joke thread. plz don't be serius here

Yes, they're all from the same guy.

Like the 5th Global Warming thread today.

Czardas, you disgust me. If you look at the structure of Climate Change, it is quite evident that it is intelligently designed, not evolved, you are blinded to its irreducible complexity. And there is a crucial point that everyone is missing, Climate Change DOESN'T have equal rights, as although heterosexuals CAN choose to marry who they love, Climate Change can't. This is why we should allow for a system whereby Climate Change can marry its bank bonus, I understand your concerns about adoption, but I am confident that they can prove to be excellent parents, as long as it remains efficiently regulated rather than aborted.

Oh my god I fell off of my chair, glanced at the post while getting back up and fell over again

"Climate Change DOESN'T have equal rights" is the best part.

Hydesland wrote:Czardas, you disgust me. If you look at the structure of Climate Change, it is quite evident that it is intelligently designed, not evolved, you are blinded to its irreducible complexity. And there is a crucial point that everyone is missing, Climate Change DOESN'T have equal rights, as although heterosexuals CAN choose to marry who they love, Climate Change can't. This is why we should allow for a system whereby Climate Change can marry its bank bonus, I understand your concerns about adoption, but I am confident that they can prove to be excellent parents, as long as it remains efficiently regulated rather than aborted.

"Irreducible complexity" is a myth perpetuated by opponents of the Large Hadron Collider. Those who display genuine scientific knowledge never use the term, simply because it implies capitalist oppression of the proletariat. No self-respecting politician can advocate imperialism and the subjugation of the masses unless they support creationism, a lie invented by opponents of same-sex marriage in order to justify their crypto-fascist policies derived from reactionary Islam, the malign influence seeking to corrupt western Europe. Your plan would just support the golden parachute mentality, an approach that is far from fair and balanced. Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion? Besides, you know who else was confident that climate change could be a good parent? Hitler, that's who.

Lo, there do I see a wall of text.
Lo, there do I see your words, and your punctuation, and your numbers.
Lo, there do I see the line of words, from margin to margin and stretching eternally downward.
Lo, they do call to me. They bid me take some message from them, but I haven't got that kind of patience. Not even if I knew I would live forever.

The enter key saves lives. Viking lives. Also Arabs who are strangely Mexican looking.