Why Do Trump and Conservatives Hate Wildlife and the Environment?

Reaction score
1,003
Location
Shangri La
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Killing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
while logging a forest or building a dam would not be considered illegal unless the animals were specifically targeted, under
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the Endangered Species Act by President Donald Trump's administration that marks a sea change in how the landmark environmental law is enforced.

A directive sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees this week says imperiled animals or plants must be intentionally targeted for their killing to be considered illegal.

That's a sharp turnaround from past practice at the wildlife service, which historically held people liable even for accidentally harming protected species such as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Former Fish and Wildlife director says the change 'creates a huge loophole'​

Experts said the change would allow timber companies to log forests in the Pacific Northwest even if they knew that doing so could kill imperiled birds nesting in the trees, or for developers to build a dam knowing it would kill salmon.

"This cuts against the entire history of the Endangered Species Act," said Dan Ashe, who led the Fish and Wildlife Service under former President Barack Obama.


"It just creates a huge loophole," added Ashe, who is now president of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. "It completely relieves people of any responsibility for their actions, even consequences that can be easily
predicted."

Encouraged by Republican lawmakers and industry lobbyists, officials under Trump have moved to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the endangered species law and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from its regulations. Administration officials have said they are returning the law to its original intent, following a 2024
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
decision that limited the authority of federal agencies to interpret environmental statutes passed by Congress.

States and conservation groups have filed numerous lawsuits seeking to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The directive follows a rule change defining 'harm' under Endangered Species Act​

The new interpretation of what it means to harm — or "take" — a species was detailed in a Sept. 14 directive from Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik.

"Felling a tree is not a take of the bats roosting in it unless the tree is felled for the purpose of killing or capturing them," Nesvik wrote, adding that the bats would only be impacted "indirectly and accidentally."
The directive, reported earlier by The New York Times, leans heavily on a dissenting opinion from former Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1995 Supreme Court case. It comes on the heels of a new rule from the wildlife service in July that narrowed the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, or ESA.

Nesvik's directive will guide how that new rule is put into action, according to a Thursday statement from the Interior Department, which includes the Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Under the guidance, the ESA's prohibition on 'take' continues to prohibit conduct including harassing, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or collecting protected wildlife," Interior Department officials said.

Some companies may still seek permits​

For decades, the government had defined harm to imperiled animals broadly to include encroachments on places where they live. Environmentalists warn the recent moves, if allowed to stand, will speed extinctions by letting protected species be killed and opening the door to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

"This is basically a free-for-all," said Noah Greenwald with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. "It's a radical reinterpretation that would put polluters and other industry before the natural world."

Federal officials have long worked with companies and individuals to minimize harm to species by crafting habitat protection plans and issuing permits for some incidental killings.
Under the new interpretation of the law, the only people needing such a permit would be those acting directly against animals, such as hunters, trappers, anglers and perhaps pesticide users, said Sandi Snodgrass, an attorney with Holland and Hart in Denver whose clients include developers, energy companies and utilities.

But Snodgrass said some companies may still seek permits to guard against changes by future administrations or to protect themselves against citizen lawsuits.

The Endangered Species Act is credited with bringing back iconic animals — including the bald eagle, American alligator and California condor — from the brink of extinction.

Republicans rolled back several provisions of the law in Trump's first term, only to have those moves reversed under Democratic President Joe Biden, then revived yet again during Trump's second term.
 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Killing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
while logging a forest or building a dam would not be considered illegal unless the animals were specifically targeted, under
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the Endangered Species Act by President Donald Trump's administration that marks a sea change in how the landmark environmental law is enforced.

A directive sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees this week says imperiled animals or plants must be intentionally targeted for their killing to be considered illegal.

That's a sharp turnaround from past practice at the wildlife service, which historically held people liable even for accidentally harming protected species such as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Former Fish and Wildlife director says the change 'creates a huge loophole'​

Experts said the change would allow timber companies to log forests in the Pacific Northwest even if they knew that doing so could kill imperiled birds nesting in the trees, or for developers to build a dam knowing it would kill salmon.

"This cuts against the entire history of the Endangered Species Act," said Dan Ashe, who led the Fish and Wildlife Service under former President Barack Obama.


"It just creates a huge loophole," added Ashe, who is now president of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. "It completely relieves people of any responsibility for their actions, even consequences that can be easily
predicted."

Encouraged by Republican lawmakers and industry lobbyists, officials under Trump have moved to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the endangered species law and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from its regulations. Administration officials have said they are returning the law to its original intent, following a 2024
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
decision that limited the authority of federal agencies to interpret environmental statutes passed by Congress.

States and conservation groups have filed numerous lawsuits seeking to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The directive follows a rule change defining 'harm' under Endangered Species Act​

The new interpretation of what it means to harm — or "take" — a species was detailed in a Sept. 14 directive from Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik.

"Felling a tree is not a take of the bats roosting in it unless the tree is felled for the purpose of killing or capturing them," Nesvik wrote, adding that the bats would only be impacted "indirectly and accidentally."
The directive, reported earlier by The New York Times, leans heavily on a dissenting opinion from former Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1995 Supreme Court case. It comes on the heels of a new rule from the wildlife service in July that narrowed the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, or ESA.

Nesvik's directive will guide how that new rule is put into action, according to a Thursday statement from the Interior Department, which includes the Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Under the guidance, the ESA's prohibition on 'take' continues to prohibit conduct including harassing, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or collecting protected wildlife," Interior Department officials said.

Some companies may still seek permits​

For decades, the government had defined harm to imperiled animals broadly to include encroachments on places where they live. Environmentalists warn the recent moves, if allowed to stand, will speed extinctions by letting protected species be killed and opening the door to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

"This is basically a free-for-all," said Noah Greenwald with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. "It's a radical reinterpretation that would put polluters and other industry before the natural world."

Federal officials have long worked with companies and individuals to minimize harm to species by crafting habitat protection plans and issuing permits for some incidental killings.
Under the new interpretation of the law, the only people needing such a permit would be those acting directly against animals, such as hunters, trappers, anglers and perhaps pesticide users, said Sandi Snodgrass, an attorney with Holland and Hart in Denver whose clients include developers, energy companies and utilities.

But Snodgrass said some companies may still seek permits to guard against changes by future administrations or to protect themselves against citizen lawsuits.

The Endangered Species Act is credited with bringing back iconic animals — including the bald eagle, American alligator and California condor — from the brink of extinction.

Republicans rolled back several provisions of the law in Trump's first term, only to have those moves reversed under Democratic President Joe Biden, then revived yet again during Trump's second term.
Oh look! Holliday is poasting moar Trump hate from the AP.
 
In your incestuous mind caring for the environment equals hating the selfish cretin in the White House?
I'm a conservative, Mingie. I love the environment and wish to "conserve" it. You vile filth only care about bad mouthing the President for every and any little thing you can bad mouth him for.

I can only imagine how apoplectic you would get if Trump incarcerated all the Hobos.
 
Conservationism focuses on the sustainable, "wise use" of natural resources for human and economic benefit, while environmentalism takes a broader approach focused on protecting ecosystems from human harm and pollution. [
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
]

Core Differences
    • Conservationism:
      • Emphasizes stewardship, sustainable management, and responsible use of natural resources like timber, water, and wildlife.
      • Permits human consumption or extraction if managed for future availability (e.g., regulated hunting or sustainable logging).
      • Historically tied to figures like Theodore Roosevelt. [
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ,
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ,
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ]
    • Environmentalism:
      • Focuses on keeping nature pristine, preventing pollution, addressing climate change, and halting biodiversity loss.
      • Often advocates for hands-off protection, stricter public policies, and minimizing human disruption in natural habitats.
      • Historically championed by preservationists like John Muir. [
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ,
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ,
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ,
        Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
        ]
 
From Quora:

How do environmentalists and conservationists differ?​


Sort


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

·
Follow
Low-carbon Innovation Strategist
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Originally Answered:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That’s a remarkably interesting question. It comes down to a few things, but seems to be splitting along partisan lines, with environmentalists to the center and left, and conservationists on the right.
Reading through various bits of literature as I did quick scan, the people who seem obsessed with the differences appear to be right wing people who like nature, but don’t like global problems or solutions that require governmental action.
Conservationists come from a background of stewardship of the land, a potentially positive thing in and of itself. There’s a religious element to this, with the Bible indicating that the Christian god granted dominion over the land to man (not woman, not humans, man). But taking advantage of nature’s bounty in a way which does not degrade it for future generations is a positive attitude, whether it’s doing soil management to preserve agricultural land, or setting aside a nature preserve so that future people can appreciate it.
Rich people doing that or governments doing that seemed just fine up until maybe the 1970s or 1980s. The Republicans established the National Parks system and the Environmental Protection Agency, after all.
Then global environmental problems started rearing their heads, and along with them the growth of what are now referred to as environmentalists. Rachel Carson might have been one of the most influential early environmentalists with her book, Silent Spring. That pointed out the significant problem that an insecticide, DDT, was causing to birds’ eggshells, weakening them to the point of collapse and threatening species. This led to chemical companies with rich owners and executives, often ‘conservationists’, entering into one of the early environmental disinformation campaigns to prevent loss of profits.
The next one was acid rain, where burning of higher sulfur coal was killing forests and lakes. Environmentalists fought that one too, and the first Bush and Mulroney got on board with the U.S.–Canada Air Quality Agreement, a regional agreement which was mirrored by similar regional agreements globally. Once again, rich shareholders and executives who often considered themselves ‘conservationists’ lost a battle due to larger scale impacts than the things that they considered important. They fought against the Agreement tooth and nail, claiming it was far too expensive and that the economic and societal impacts would be far too great. They lost, they were wrong, coal changed and generation was slightly more expensive.
Then came the hole in the ozone layer. Environmentalists fought that one too, and Mulroney got on board again, this time with Reagan, to put in place the Montreal Accord which massively curtailed the use of CFCs and has led to the closing of the hole in the ozone layer in recent years. Once again, chemical companies whose executives and shareholders considered themselves ‘conservationists’ fought against the Accord, claiming the science was bad, the societal and economic impacts would be too great. The now booming PR industry devoted to fighting for polluting industries and oligarchs was now mature, bringing the lessons of tobacco fights and other fights against prevention of harm to large swaths of the world’s populace into a set of dark arts practices, perhaps best characterized in the black comedy film, Thank You for Smoking.
Of course, the continued split between mostly right-wing ‘conservationists’ and apparently left-leaning environmentalists was widening.
Next came global warming. The preceding cracks between people who purported to care about the environment became impossible to ignore. Environmentalists accepted the science, looked at the harm, formed the UN IPCC, created the Kyoto Protocol and then the Paris Accord. Meanwhile, ‘conservationists’ denied climate change, fought against regulation, tried to make the preservation of nature a corporate or oligarchic give back when they felt like it on their terms and in limited quantities, not a social imperative.
Now, ‘conservationists’ support the Republican Party and its four year fight against the EPA that Republicans created. Now, ‘conservationists’ fight against the Green New Deal that would clean up the water and the air, and put renewable energy on the land instead of fossil fuel extraction infrastructure and attendant pollution. Now, ‘conservationists’ fight against wind energy on ‘behalf of the birds’ but ignore global warming’s species extinction threats to vast numbers of birds and other species.
I’m sure that there are still sensible conservationists who accept global warming and vote Democratic. But they are thin on the ground. The segregation into globally detrimental ‘conservationists’ who paper over the destruction with local actions, and globally positive environmentalists who are working to preserve the economic value of nature is now stark.
 
I'm a conservative, Mingie. I love the environment and wish to "conserve" it. You vile filth only care about bad mouthing the President for every and any little thing you can bad mouth him for.

I can only imagine how apoplectic you would get if Trump incarcerated all the Hobos.
Can you show us on the doll where the Hobo touched you?
 
From Quora:

How do environmentalists and conservationists differ?​


Sort


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

·
Follow
Low-carbon Innovation Strategist
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Originally Answered:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That’s a remarkably interesting question. It comes down to a few things, but seems to be splitting along partisan lines, with environmentalists to the center and left, and conservationists on the right.
Reading through various bits of literature as I did quick scan, the people who seem obsessed with the differences appear to be right wing people who like nature, but don’t like global problems or solutions that require governmental action.
Conservationists come from a background of stewardship of the land, a potentially positive thing in and of itself. There’s a religious element to this, with the Bible indicating that the Christian god granted dominion over the land to man (not woman, not humans, man). But taking advantage of nature’s bounty in a way which does not degrade it for future generations is a positive attitude, whether it’s doing soil management to preserve agricultural land, or setting aside a nature preserve so that future people can appreciate it.
Rich people doing that or governments doing that seemed just fine up until maybe the 1970s or 1980s. The Republicans established the National Parks system and the Environmental Protection Agency, after all.
Then global environmental problems started rearing their heads, and along with them the growth of what are now referred to as environmentalists. Rachel Carson might have been one of the most influential early environmentalists with her book, Silent Spring. That pointed out the significant problem that an insecticide, DDT, was causing to birds’ eggshells, weakening them to the point of collapse and threatening species. This led to chemical companies with rich owners and executives, often ‘conservationists’, entering into one of the early environmental disinformation campaigns to prevent loss of profits.
The next one was acid rain, where burning of higher sulfur coal was killing forests and lakes. Environmentalists fought that one too, and the first Bush and Mulroney got on board with the U.S.–Canada Air Quality Agreement, a regional agreement which was mirrored by similar regional agreements globally. Once again, rich shareholders and executives who often considered themselves ‘conservationists’ lost a battle due to larger scale impacts than the things that they considered important. They fought against the Agreement tooth and nail, claiming it was far too expensive and that the economic and societal impacts would be far too great. They lost, they were wrong, coal changed and generation was slightly more expensive.
Then came the hole in the ozone layer. Environmentalists fought that one too, and Mulroney got on board again, this time with Reagan, to put in place the Montreal Accord which massively curtailed the use of CFCs and has led to the closing of the hole in the ozone layer in recent years. Once again, chemical companies whose executives and shareholders considered themselves ‘conservationists’ fought against the Accord, claiming the science was bad, the societal and economic impacts would be too great. The now booming PR industry devoted to fighting for polluting industries and oligarchs was now mature, bringing the lessons of tobacco fights and other fights against prevention of harm to large swaths of the world’s populace into a set of dark arts practices, perhaps best characterized in the black comedy film, Thank You for Smoking.
Of course, the continued split between mostly right-wing ‘conservationists’ and apparently left-leaning environmentalists was widening.
Next came global warming. The preceding cracks between people who purported to care about the environment became impossible to ignore. Environmentalists accepted the science, looked at the harm, formed the UN IPCC, created the Kyoto Protocol and then the Paris Accord. Meanwhile, ‘conservationists’ denied climate change, fought against regulation, tried to make the preservation of nature a corporate or oligarchic give back when they felt like it on their terms and in limited quantities, not a social imperative.
Now, ‘conservationists’ support the Republican Party and its four year fight against the EPA that Republicans created. Now, ‘conservationists’ fight against the Green New Deal that would clean up the water and the air, and put renewable energy on the land instead of fossil fuel extraction infrastructure and attendant pollution. Now, ‘conservationists’ fight against wind energy on ‘behalf of the birds’ but ignore global warming’s species extinction threats to vast numbers of birds and other species.
I’m sure that there are still sensible conservationists who accept global warming and vote Democratic. But they are thin on the ground. The segregation into globally detrimental ‘conservationists’ who paper over the destruction with local actions, and globally positive environmentalists who are working to preserve the economic value of nature is now stark.
Oh look? Holliday found something that blames good and wholesome conservatives for not sucking Green New Deal Cock.
 
Oh look? Holliday found something that blames good and wholesome conservatives for not sucking Green New Deal Cock.
You'll get it in 50 years.
.You always move forward while remaining far behind.

Remember when you guys hated rock n roll and put people in jail for smoking weed?
Now look atcheh.
 
You'll get it in 50 years.
.You always move forward while remaining far behind.

Remember when you guys hated rock n roll and put people in jail for smoking weed?
Now look atcheh.
Can you explain why all the "solutions" for "climate change" involve massive increases in government power and control and, of course, massive taxation?

Can you explain, without your AI crutch, how a "carbon tax" would do anything at all to affect the climate?
 
Can you explain why all the "solutions" for "climate change" involve massive increases in government power and control and, of course, massive taxation?

Can you explain, without your AI crutch, how a "carbon tax" would do anything at all to affect the climate?
. Can you explain why when your car needs repair or you abuse your body into ill health that it requires actions beyond what you alone might be able to take, and why it costs money?

...and why do you conservatives hate giving so much? Why do you hate paying the taxes which keeps your public works working, and government running? Why do you hate clean water and air, schools, roads and bridges, and the judicial system?

You see how I didn't mention you hating the military (or ICE), because I know how you people love blowing shit up in other countries and shooting citizens in our streets.

..but money to keep the very environment in which we live livable(?) Ooooooh noooooooo.....
 
Can you explain why all the "solutions" for "climate change" involve massive increases in government power and control and, of course, massive taxation?

Can you explain, without your AI crutch, how a "carbon tax" would do anything at all to affect the climate?
Can you explain why a roundhouse kick to your head, wouldn’t improve your attitude?
 
. Can you explain why when your car needs repair or you abuse your body into ill health that it requires actions beyond what you alone might be able to take, and why it costs money?

What's that have to do with massive increases in government power and taxation? Are you really so simple-minded that you believe the government can save you from "climate change?"

...and why do you conservatives hate giving so much? Why do you hate paying the taxes which keeps your public works working, and government running? Why do you hate clean water and air, schools, roads and bridges, and the judicial system?
Taxation is theft, it is not "giving." Now explain how taxation will mitigate climate change?

You see how I didn't mention you hating the military (or ICE), because I know how you people love blowing shit up in other countries and shooting citizens in our streets.

..but money to keep the very environment in which we live livable(?) Ooooooh noooooooo.....
Again, how will taxation "keep the very environment in which we live livable?"
 
Taxation is theft, it is not "giving." Now explain how taxation will mitigate climate change?
Why do you hate the US Constitution, Reggie?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides Congress with broad authority to lay and collect taxes for federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Supreme Court has emphasized the significance of this power, stating that it is no accident it appears first in the list of congressional powers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and is the one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
By the Constitution’s terms, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and only two qualifications.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Articles exported from any state may not be taxed at all,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Supreme Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it reaches every subject,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that it is exhaustive
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or that it embraces every conceivable power of taxation.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Despite few express limitations on the taxing power, the scope of Congress’s taxing power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decisions with respect to the manner in which taxes are imposed,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the objects for which they may be levied,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the subject matter of taxation.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Theft?
Maybe you don't regard the destruction of life, and pursuit of happiness when natural environments are defiled, and people and animals succumb to diseases caused by pollution unleashed by rabid capitalist and careless citizens as theft.
...but that is exactly what it is..
 
Last edited:
Now Mingie is having violent fantasies. What is it with you Leftist Filth and your penchant for violence?
You mean like Prowlers violent fantasies? What is it with you contard filth and your penchant for fake outrage and violence?
 
Why do you hate the US Constitution, Reggie?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides Congress with broad authority to lay and collect taxes for federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Supreme Court has emphasized the significance of this power, stating that it is no accident it appears first in the list of congressional powers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and is the one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
By the Constitution’s terms, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and only two qualifications.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Articles exported from any state may not be taxed at all,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Supreme Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it reaches every subject,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that it is exhaustive
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or that it embraces every conceivable power of taxation.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Despite few express limitations on the taxing power, the scope of Congress’s taxing power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decisions with respect to the manner in which taxes are imposed,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the objects for which they may be levied,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the subject matter of taxation.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Theft?
Yes, Holliday, taxes are theft. Is there something you fail to grasp about that word?
Maybe you don't regard the destruction of life, and pursuit of happiness when natural environments are defiled, and people and animals succumb to diseases caused by pollution unleashed by rabid capitalist and careless citizens as theft.
...but that is exactly what it is..
It is hubris to think we humans can destroy the environment. You do understand what the word "hubris" means, don't you? Ask your AI crutch. Life creates the conditions to sustain and advance Life. As George Carlin once asked, how do you know we're NOT supposed to make all this plastic?
 
You mean like Prowlers violent fantasies? What is it with you contard filth and your penchant for fake outrage and violence?
Two responses to one poast? Gee, I guess I wound little jackie up a bit.

The internet police said Mingie is already on their list for his seditious anti-Americanism. They're also investigating the disappearance of a number of homeless Hobos in the Portland area that are tied to Mingie's public toilet escapades.
 
Yes, Holliday, taxes are theft. Is there something you fail to grasp about that word?

It is hubris to think we humans can destroy the environment. You do understand what the word "hubris" means, don't you? Ask your AI crutch. Life creates the conditions to sustain and advance Life. As George Carlin once asked, how do you know we're NOT supposed to make all this plastic?
Reggie, that was so pathetic and weak I will not even dignify it with a direct response.
. I only ask that you...
do better.
 
people thriving are peaceful

check out all the rich communities in any state

it’s the poor who have been enslaved for that 10% benefit who are suffering

and they have used nutrient deficiency to convert your brain into a capitalist’s wet dream