Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I unfetter my demons from my pants onto suspecting women. Everyone's a winner. Me, the deomns and the lady.

the ted nugent route. no substances, just 'tang. appreciated, just not for everybody. too much effort, too much rejection. a drug never needs to be courted, appeased or lied to.

Plus it won't snicker at your tiny doodle, flesh

neag, why do you keep thinking i have a tiny doodle?

strangely, according to nazi propoganda at least, jews were seen as oversexed vermin with exaggeratedly large doodles.

i like to think i prove that point.

No Flesh - check your comprehension - I was very clearly directly refuting Fred's ridiculous post just above mine.

You might be interested to know that 'global warming' became 'climate change' at the hands of the Republican spinsters in the US. It is people who want to lessen the apparent severity of it all who are opposed to calling it global warming.

Im w/ NEAG here- i have heard stuff and more to the point, Ive seen in the lockerrooms no diference between jews and asians.

Sorry Flesh, hope you're no Miagi.

Not that I care, but I heard that Ron Jeremy's real name is Ron Jerimiavitz

Im w/ NEAG here- i have heard stuff and more to the point, Ive seen in the lockerrooms no diference between jews and asians.

no chance. ever watch the works of ron jeremy or john leslie? the "small-dicked jew" claim has as much veracity as the blood libel claim.

neag? thoughts? i'm seriously asking.

thank you, fred.

ok, my wife just said i was average. i dispute that claim.

In a fairly recent study (couldn't find a link), Germans were reported to have the biggest doodles in Europe. My Irish relations came in 2nd to last in front of Norway.

The questions I have are:

- Who would propose the study other than a bunch of idiots at a bar?

- Who would fund it?

- What could you do with the data (tourism)?

- Who would take the job of measuring? Unless it's a bunch of 18 year old girls in shorts & tank tops, you're going to have a lot of researhers with broken jaws.

Every time I lean toward scientists as being bright people who are trying to solve the mysteries of our World, I read another one of these moronic studies and realize that these are the same Geeks that spent their Saturday nights in HS playing Dungeons & Dragons.

It is people who want to lessen the apparent severity of it all who are opposed to calling it global warming.

so you just like to make stuff up, olv? it's called "climate change" instead of "global warming" because while the cause is rising global temps, the effects on temperature and weather throughout the world will vary. many places will get warmer and more arid. some places that were once inhospitable will become more temperate. major weather events like hurricanes will increase. etc.

get it?

Fred, the hottest year on record is 1934, so what's your point? That's right, you don't have one.
Yo, click it

Fred, the hottest year on record is 1934, so what's your point? That's right, you don't have one.

what is wrong with you? so what that 1934 was the hottest year on record? does that negate the fact that the world has grown much warmer over the last 2 decades?

you suck.

The "ambiguity" is similar to that used by the tobacco industry about how smoking wasn't conclusively proven to cause cancer, just that there was an association with it.

What about "second hand smoke" and cancer? That hysteria's been debunked, yet people cling to it.

I think there are many things that our grandchildren will get a chuckle over. How we blamed everything from hurricanes to kidney stones on "climate change" is just one of them. We've never had a serious debate on the subject in this country or in the world. People declared "the argument is settled" when it never happened. Encourage a robust debate, strip away the socio-political garbage and the half-baked ideas pushed (carbon credits) and look at the problems and real solutions. We seem to completely focus on our own activity and never seem to fully work in solar activity when we draw up reasons why our planet has warmed. The biggest source of heat for our planet gets little attention in any global warming/climate change lecture.

One guy who has pushed his own plan, good or bad, is Pickens (link below). His plan is to attack the energy problem and the associated polution issue at the same time. Get us out of the mess as quickly as possible and make a national push toward different energy sources. Not an "either/or," but a "both."

Saying we need to act now to stop glabal warming in ten years and poo-pooing drilling in wastelands, like the 2,000 acres staked out in ANWR or the offshore drilling (one of the most environmentally safe industries in terms of accidental spillage), because we won't see the results for ten years weakens the argument.

I heard it put somewhere. We went from a NIMBY nation to a BANANA nation. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
linc

What about "second hand smoke" and cancer? That hysteria's been debunked, yet people cling to it.

really? Debunked by whom?

secondhand smoke exposure still causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

Methinks the jury is still out at the very least.
Yo, click it

World Health Organization, for one.
link

Here's a guy who "is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda, Md. Formerly, he was deputy director of the Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention at the National Cancer Institute."

He seems to think the debate's settled.
linc

well, your WHO study is 10 years old. The CDC study is new. Issue clearly not settled.

Well, it's not like the CDC has ever declared something with blaring trumpets, only to come back later and sheepishly change their conclusion to the exact opposite position and, coincidentily, the one that means less money for them and their cronies/buddies.
Yo, click it

There are actually ads on Dodgers games from California that tell people that if they smoke in their apartment that they are endangering the children next door and exposing them to risk of respiratory ailments and cancer.

To be clear, I am not taking a side here. I'm just saying that to declare the idea that there is a link between 2nd hand smoke and cancer "debunked" is a reach. It has not been debunked, the debate continues.

Logically speaking, however, I think it's pretty retarded.

if they smoke in their apartment that they are endangering the children next door and exposing them to risk of respiratory ailments and cancer.

If you're referring to that being retarded, I agree.

I understand, Dino. I kinda got that from what you were posting.

I just think there's lots of sciency stuff that goes as "settled" that, in fact, isn't nearly as settled as some think.

Skepticism, for me, has been a good thing and is a better base for science than consensus opinion.

I think the EU (and I should be clear, I'm not "pro-smoking" because I don't smoke, but can't stand the naggers) proposed a ban on smoking in private houses if a government official was to visit withi 24 hours.







I said, "naggers," FB.

1 2 3 4 5  6