Oh, and a massive land campaign in the middle east is actually more expensive then drone strikes, it's actually cheaper to bomb people from a robotic drone then it is to commit manpower and resources to a massive land campaign that would have been needed to fight an insurgency. Just move the debt into treasury bonds and sell it to corporations and you've managed to financialized the debt, which is what we've always done. Though there really are a number of ways to calculate the deficit because there are a whole bunch of financial gimmicks the government uses to cover it up or obscure what's already there. I think all they really cared about was the national deficit, which seemed to be something Obama actually had an effect on. Your devoted to maintaining the status quo if you've become a liberal, let's just put it that way. Messages of hope and change don't amount to much when that stuff doesn't matter to you party platform. They don't seem to comprehend what is going on because there is always some cheap speech to absorb by some democrat candidate. It's one thing that frustrates me about all my family members who support the liberals but are so much older then me. People act like Obama got a whole lot done, but he didn't. Bush was even better in some respects then Obama, which is a strange thing to say. A very sad fact, but we consider him the "best" because all of our presidents have been crap. Shit, we have set the bar pretty low if the best the liberals could give us was Obama.
Not to mention he had a blue house and Senate. It's funny in fact it's just completely comical the amount of lies this country is built on. Everywhere they know we have brain dead liberals across the world but America because we think they are the far left socialist. This speech is trash because the crowd is cheering for something they can't quite comprehend and I honestly hate liberals now, they're just a big fake party that ask everyone to be civically engaged while lying through their teeth about progress and promises that they seem to make. For regulators in other industries as they review and evaluate the use of toxic chemicals.Pipelines in North Dakota and Minnesota have not been cancelled by any liberal "environmentally friendly and supported by science" administration.For officials and scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency as they reconsider the renewal of approvals of the fracking chemicals.He added that the initial approval documents were redacted because of a statute protecting proprietary business information. The fluid that creates these substances has been used in fracking for oil and gas in nearly 1,200 wells across the United States.ĮPA regulators had previously expressed concerns about using these chemicals, saying that they can “degrade in the environment, and they were found to be “toxic to people, wild animals, and birds.” The approval of these chemicals, made a decade ago, was not widely known until a report was issued by Physicians for Social Responsibility was made public.Īn EPA spokesperson said the chemicals were approved a decade ago and that the agency now has to affirm that new chemicals are safe before they’re allowed in the marketplace.
The Environmental Protection Agency in 2011 approved the use of chemicals in fracking that can break down into toxic substances known as PFAS. The substances, known as “forever chemicals,” can accumulate in the human body and have been linked to cancer, birth defects, pre-eclampsia, and other health concerns. The chemicals can accumulate in the human body.
0 kommentar(er)
