Mitt Romney is more likely than Obama to spend the appropriate amount of money fighting global warming

  1. Why is warmer worse than colder? We want the earth temperature to never change? It has always changed. Change is the only constant. Sure it can be scientifically proven that spitting in the ocean raises the ocean levels, but by HOW MUCH? How much money should we spend guarding the shore line to prevent people from spitting into the ocean? Do we spend 1 trillion US dollars to prevent 1/2 a degree in 5 years? Do we spend 10 trillion? 100 trillion? A trillion trillion? This argument is so stupid. People on the left never think that a business cost benefit analysis should be done. To them this is religion. We are just supposed to turn off our brain, take our marching orders, and repeat after me: Global Warming is caused by man, and we should do whatever it takes to stop global warming, no matter what. This is religion to Obama and his environmental backers, this is a long term business decision according to Romney. Romney is right. 



Common Interest:
  1.  

Interest of those who agree
Disagree
  1.  

Opposing Interest:
  1.  
  1.  


  1.  

Web-pages that disagree:

  1.  

Web-pages that disagree:

  1.  
  1.  

Better ways of saying the same thing:
  1.  


# of reasons to agree: 0
# of reasons to disagree: -0
# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0
# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0
Total Idea Score: 0

The current price to buy stock in this belief is $0.95 per share
The Idea Stock Exchange score for this idea is: +3-1=2

I am trying to brainstorm reasons to agree and disagree. Please help me!

Join the debate! Just leave a comment, and I’ll add it to the correct location. Once I get some programmers to help me, this will be automatic.
 
Evaluate the above conclusion (also known as a belief or thesis).
    Comments