Toilet Paper and other idiocy

Now the eviorn-nuts want to limit toilet paper use, only one sheet per use...OK by poll how many believe that will accomplish the mission at "hand" and complete the required "paperwork".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04 /21/AR2007042101385_pf.html

Crow (4/19, Springfield, Tenn.): I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.



Sawdust crappers, in your basement, that will work, jeeze.

And San Francisco, in the 70's ban paper bags demand plastic, because of the enviornmental damage of the use of trees for paper, now demand paper because of the enviornmental damage of plastic......make up your minds.

Gotta love Liberal Enviornmental Tree Huggers, can't quite figure out what is good for us, global cooling, new ice age in the 70's, now global warming, and the same scientists, what is the next "End of the world" scenario........everyone look up between @0600 and 2000, notice anything, that great heat tab in the sky, has a lot to do with the "heat" here on the surface. MArs also is losing its polar icecaps, co-incidense? or is the Mars rover that much of a killer SUV, or does Haliburton already have massive geo-mineral recovery assets already inplace?

Edited by oldsoldier - 23 April 2007 at 9:49am

Allow me to pose a more general question to OS:

TP, global warming, and any other specifics aside - do you believe that we (mankind) have an obligation to not destroy the environment?

evillepaintball wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Allow me to pose a more general question to OS: TP, global warming, and any other specifics aside - do you believe that we (mankind) have an obligation to not destroy the environment? at least until we find another planet to live on

Crow (4/19, Springfield, Tenn.) wrote: I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

I don't know about OS, but while I feel that there there is some obligation, it doesn't extend into lunacy. Do you really feel that packaging toilet paper in indavidual squares would really help the enviornment?

Edited by c4cypher - 23 April 2007 at 10:45am

Yes Clark, Mankind has an obligation. Now once our scientists finally decide what exactly is the true error in our ways, maybe, until then I am sceptical. I do remmember the New Ice Age warnings of the 70's, then paper/plastic debates of the 70's and now today. Now the total opposite. Seen the eastern euro bloc after the fall of the Soviets, talk about a society that polluted.
And my primary concern at the present time is the utilization of science for socialist ideals. Limiting advanced societies, yet giving 2nd/3rd world full freedoms to do whatever does appear to be equalization, theft from one to benifit another. China with no polution restrictions, now there is a thought.
Al Gore, investing in a commodities firm that will sell polution/carbon footprint credits as a tradable commodity, and then making his gloom and doom movie, on polution and global warming does has a bit of hyprocracy in it. Are the social elites willing to live in our society as they preach we should, once they do maybe I will put some credance in thier claims.
The Gores, Edwards, etc have a "carbon footprint" larger than entire small communities here, and maybe even small developing countries, yet claim thier fellow americans must change thier life style to benifit the world. That my friend is the dilema.

The opposition view of global axis tilt, past higher and lower temperature changes based on archological/geological data, even the study of the sun, is never brought up. What caused ther Sahara to go from lush savanna to desert, what is causing the Martian polar cap melt, what caused the heat waves of the 16th century, even the dust bowl of the 30's.
The earth/solar system/universe is a diverse mesh of scientific unknowns, cause and effect. The Earth wobbles on its axis, scientific fact, changing solar aspect, any way that is causing the 1-2 degree shift in temp? I beleive Mt St Helen's put more greenhouse gasses and particular polutants in the atmosphere in four days than man has is 4 centuries. And the most by volumn greenhouse gas is Di-Hydro mono-oxide, lets also ban and regulate that.

Edited by oldsoldier - 23 April 2007 at 11:48am

oldsoldier wrote: [crap]

You make me sick.
If you truly felt that mankind had an obligation to preserve the
environment than you would leave all the political <poopy> behind and
change your ways.

oldsoldier wrote: The Gores, Edwards, etc have a "carbon footprint" larger than entire small communities here, and maybe even small developing countries, yet claim thier fellow americans must change thier life style to benifit the world. That my friend is the dilema.

Shame on you.
Your complete inability to realize the importance of saving the planet
simply because it's considered a "leftist" agenda absolutely blows me
away. Honest to god, it makes me very sad.

It doesn't have anything to do with the hypocracy of the "social elites" or
China's policy on polution. Buck up and stop passing the blame
elsewhere you coward.

Edited by Rambino - 23 April 2007 at 2:48pm

There IS no scientific consensus on the subject of the CAUSE of Global Warming.  Yes, we know the average temperature on the face of this planet went up about 1°F in the last century.  WHY this happened, is still being debated, though you'd never know it from the media coverage.

1. Non-scientists generally don't want to bother with understanding the science. Any claims of consensus relieve them of any need to do so. These claims also serve to intimidate the public.
2. There is a clear attempt to establish truth, not by scientific methods, but by perpetual repetition.

Personally, I think we're doing our part here.  Is there room for improvement?  I have no doubt.  Will we?  Most likely.  Reduce pollution.  Use compact fluorescent lights etc...  But to follow the gloom and doom sermons of the likes of Al Gore is pure folley... 

 

This is right up there with the proposition that I heard not too long ago for the imposition of a tax on barbecuing since BBQ grills emit CO2. There would be an annual fee paid by those wishing to grill.

smooth huh?

Okay, no one mentioned this. How exactly do you propose the gov't "limit" our toilet paper use? Sell in individual packets? The packaging required would destroy the environment faster than TP ever would.

 

Idiots.

I are only a Hi Skool Gradyouate,

Edited by oldsoldier - 23 April 2007 at 11:52am

I am sticking with the general theme of the thread and talking about cleaning yourself.


Has anybody in here used a bidet? Do they really work? Is it as refreshing as it looks?