Flashgalaxy
Cupcake
Anyone here knows Seagal's political stand on the current presidential elections?
Does Seagal favor Bush or Kerry?
- Thread starter Flashgalaxy
- Start date
_Steven Seagal_
New Member
kerry.. all actors (excep schwarzenegger) favor kerry
tenshinaikidoka
Martial Art Student
I don't think all actors favor Kerry!!!!
Flashgalaxy
Cupcake
But he openly stated his support for the Philippines leader Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in her last election. "Seagal also favors former President Ronald Reagan in the U.S., but insists it depends on the situation that makes a good president."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-05-04-steven-seagal_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-05-04-steven-seagal_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA
Sometimes into cooking,sometimes into eating kickingbird
candle lighter
After what the Bush admin. has done to the environment, who knows? Drink of clean water, anyone?
Jules
Potters Clay
speaking from experience
President Bush HAS done things for the enviroment. My husband and I can speak from experience as farmers. We have to cough up $10,000 dollars out of our pocket for tougher regulations on farmers and manure. We also have to chart how much is spread AND where because there are stricter laws now on spreading large amounts of animal manure and how much can be spread and where.kickingbird said:
kickingbird
candle lighter
Yes, he's done "something" for the environment; however, he's done much harm also! There is extensive oil and gas drilling, weakening of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc. I could write a book but won't. One thing is certain: if Bush is re-elected, just sit back and see where he takes this country. Just be sure to check in with the basic environmental groups as to exactly where. The bottom line is: this country refuses to sign the Kyoto treaty - Bush wants to "do his thing" instead. Alaska is melting. Greenland is melting. The Atlantic Conveyer could very well slow or stop (cold times in Europe). We need to act fast and now with drastic environmental steps and alternative energy sources. If we do not, future generations will greatly suffer. Wars will go on, poverty will go on - yet we CAN do something about the environment. No matter how many wars we "win" if the global environment is damanged beyond repair, where are we gonna live? The US is one of the biggest pollutors and oil/gas consumers in the world yet Bush has sat on his laurels and "done things his way". Guess it's his way or the highway ... guess who's on the next starship outta here? lol
Peace
Peace
kickingbird
candle lighter
Ah yes, the sweet smell ... ever drive through Iowa with the windows down? lol 
Jules
Potters Clay
Fresh country air!
As for presidents with agendas. Has there ever been one who hasn't had one? Each one that gets into office tries to get bills passed in line with what they believe would be in the countrys best interest. Whether congress and the senate agree on what is being presented is another matter. Work together or fart around for four years, then let the cycle start again with the next sucessor.:indiffere
LOL All I have to do is go to the pig and chicken barns or wait unil my husband needs to spread their ...ummmm..."gifts!!"kickingbird said:Ah yes, the sweet smell ... ever drive through Iowa with the windows down? lol
As for presidents with agendas. Has there ever been one who hasn't had one? Each one that gets into office tries to get bills passed in line with what they believe would be in the countrys best interest. Whether congress and the senate agree on what is being presented is another matter. Work together or fart around for four years, then let the cycle start again with the next sucessor.:indiffere
yudansha
TheGreatOne
"Alaska is melting. Greenland is melting."
What's your point kickingbird?
Here's a fact: if all the ice in the North (I'm talking about parts in and above Canada) melts, the water wouldn't reach 42nd latitude (i.e. wouldn't come close to Toronto). But for all that to happen in the near (or even 100 years), you would need the Sun much closer to Earth, and global warming rates need to increase logarithmically for decades.
Technology contributes to the pollution, but without technology, Earth would be able to barely support 2 billion people ... now think of the effects if suddenly bans on major technologies were to happen (unlikely and highly improbable).
The problem isn't with the technologies contributing to the environmental health, but it's with the amount of people who are contributing. The first step in trying to control the situation would be to try and control the population growth. Thailand is succeeding at this, and China will start showing improvements soon, but places like India are the ones to watch out for. India's government doesn't produce accurate figures on their population and some scientists have made estimations that India's population has exceeded China's. Now imagine if that goes uncontrolled and the population doubles in the next 20 years instead of 50 (which is the approximate estimate - in about 52 years, Earth will have over 12 billion people).
It's a great dillema. If you ban technology contributing to the pollution, billions of people will starve to death, but if you allow technology to exist freely amongst all, the large population will pollute the Earth to toxic levels. So the question arises, when is destruction of the planet better, sooner or later? Many factors have to be factored into such a question - possibility of a major war, nuclear attacks, and space exploration. In reality, Earth has enough resources at the moment RIGHT NOW to support EVERY single person on Earth, but the differences in allocation of resources makes it impossible. The way that North Americans and Europeans use up natural resources, we would need 3 planet Earths to support the current populace. Hence, if the scientific world finds ways of inhabiting new planets and methods of populating them (e.g. problems of mass people transport - "jumbo-shuttles") the problems will be solved for the most part.
What's your point kickingbird?
Here's a fact: if all the ice in the North (I'm talking about parts in and above Canada) melts, the water wouldn't reach 42nd latitude (i.e. wouldn't come close to Toronto). But for all that to happen in the near (or even 100 years), you would need the Sun much closer to Earth, and global warming rates need to increase logarithmically for decades.
Technology contributes to the pollution, but without technology, Earth would be able to barely support 2 billion people ... now think of the effects if suddenly bans on major technologies were to happen (unlikely and highly improbable).
The problem isn't with the technologies contributing to the environmental health, but it's with the amount of people who are contributing. The first step in trying to control the situation would be to try and control the population growth. Thailand is succeeding at this, and China will start showing improvements soon, but places like India are the ones to watch out for. India's government doesn't produce accurate figures on their population and some scientists have made estimations that India's population has exceeded China's. Now imagine if that goes uncontrolled and the population doubles in the next 20 years instead of 50 (which is the approximate estimate - in about 52 years, Earth will have over 12 billion people).
It's a great dillema. If you ban technology contributing to the pollution, billions of people will starve to death, but if you allow technology to exist freely amongst all, the large population will pollute the Earth to toxic levels. So the question arises, when is destruction of the planet better, sooner or later? Many factors have to be factored into such a question - possibility of a major war, nuclear attacks, and space exploration. In reality, Earth has enough resources at the moment RIGHT NOW to support EVERY single person on Earth, but the differences in allocation of resources makes it impossible. The way that North Americans and Europeans use up natural resources, we would need 3 planet Earths to support the current populace. Hence, if the scientific world finds ways of inhabiting new planets and methods of populating them (e.g. problems of mass people transport - "jumbo-shuttles") the problems will be solved for the most part.