posted on May, 6 2013 @ 11:42 AM
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by redtic
Christ, you people like to sensationalize, don't you?
Do you mean all of us at the LA Times?
No, you people, as in you the people that are doing the sensationalizing. And actually, the LA Times points to the ridiculousness of the
The document’s purpose is to call attention to the ways that women are vulnerable to climate change. In poor and developing countries, it will
become more difficult for women to grow and collect food and water for their families. Natural disasters fueled by climate change will force many
women and children to become refugees. Malaria and other epidemics loom.
But predictably, the online coverage has focused on sex.
“Democrats: Global warming means more hookers,” according to Tucker Carlson’s website, the Daily Caller.
“Climate Change Causes Prostitution? Congressional Leaders Say Yes,” writes Latinos Post.
I didn’t write the article, I just criticized the content!
you're seriously going to rail against something like this?
Hell yes I am! I thought liberals wanted to stay out of people’s bedrooms? Now you want to spend tax dollars on because you’re concerned about the
potential for prostitution, STD’s, unplanned pregnancy, and poor re- productive health? That makes no sense! Why does the government need to worry
about my sex life NOW? I thought it wasn’t important??
WTF are you talking about? What does that even have to do with the resolution? Oh, right - the sex part of it. Well, if you want to rail against
someone trying to help a populace that is being negatively affected right now, as in, it's a reality, I really can't help you. It's just sad that
you cherry pick and sensationalize things like this when there are many more important issues to spend effort on.