Support President Bush
Posted April 04, 2001 - 07:43 AM
Will say this about the energy crisis in CA. You can thank the California State Legislature for this one. They wanted to be on the "cutting edge" of deregulation. Gov. Gray appears to be desiring to ride this issue to the White House, seems the only house he'll ride this too will be the Out House.
Anyone think it odd that the scientists who support global warming are on our tax dollars? Or supported by grants from our rich uncle.
Weather is cyclic and we are looking at an extremely narrow window of time.
Posted April 04, 2001 - 08:21 AM
Posted April 04, 2001 - 09:53 PM
Posted April 04, 2001 - 12:57 PM
Posted April 04, 2001 - 02:13 PM
Global Warming is a vast left wing conspiracy. For years the media have been portraying Global Warming as if it were a fact, when it is just a theory of scientists that get funding from the government. Hummm, if a group of scientists come up with enough "evidence" to support their "theory" so they can get another grant to find more "evidence" that supports...
Yeah, I believe it - NOT!
I fully support President Bush in his denial of that stupid treaty. It's about time someone in authority said no. Thank God Captain Planet (aka Al Gore) is not The Pres!
Posted April 04, 2001 - 02:32 PM
Posted April 04, 2001 - 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Pete Z:
I will make a few quick comments before I duck for cover.
Thanks for the comments Pete, no need to duck, you are out of range )
But the fact is (as I see it anyhow) that in the US we are guaranteed the right to bear arms because they ARE efficient at killing people.
No, I don’t belong to the NRA, they are a bit extreme for my liking and don’t need any more money, and I’m not saying that everyone should buy an assault weapon, but I’ve got one and I know how to use it. Thomas Jefferson would have wanted it that way.
And I didn’t buy it to hunt with, I get my groceries down at the store, food is much easier to come by (and tastes better) that way.
It is ironic that this issue comes up here because their reasoning for including that provision into the bill of rights was to serve as a line of last defense against tyranny, and what I see going on in this country isn’t left vs. right, green vs. business, pro-choice vs. pro-life or Dem. Vs. GOP. It is urban vs. rural and soon we may have a classic case of the majority tyrannizing the minority. But when push comes to shove they will think twice because they know they may get shot )
That is the purpose our right to bear arms is supposed to serve, a deterrent against tyranny when free speech and democracy fail the tyrannized.
As for the proliferation of guns constituting a social problem I disagree there also. Where is the causal relationship there and in which direction is it running? People running around killing each other for no good reason is indeed a social problem, the method they use is incidental. I mean, was the OK City bombing due to the proliferation of fertilizer? Bomb building books? Rental vans? You get the point.
As for the “deal” that “we” made that was no deal. Bill Clinton is NOT and never was an agent of this country in the strict sense. He is just another elected official representing ONE branch of our govt. The US Senate rejected the treaty that Bill signed via a 95-0 vote. I wouldn’t call that much of a deal at all, would you?
And Taffy, I’m disappointed in you. You are succumbing to the very behaviour you are so wont to castigate all of us for: following the herd instinct, “But Taffy, EVERYBODY says the AP makes for better throttle response!”
As you might say, “Bunkum!!!”
I believe had you read the linked article you would have expressed a different sentiment with respect to the treaty, CO2 emissions and global warming.
Posted April 04, 2001 - 03:20 PM
Please don’t take offense, but IMO you aren’t getting the whole story.
I don’t think anybody really thinks that car exhaust isn’t bad for you, if you locked yourself in an airtight room your own breath would kill you eventually. But our president’s stated reason for rejecting the Kyoto treaty was its guidelines for CO2 emissions, not strictly hydrocarbons or pollution in general. Bush believes it would be impossible to reduce CO2 by the amounts specified in the timeline specified without egregious harm to our economy.
With only an admittedly cursory look around I’d say I cannot disagree with that assessment. There are blackouts in CA, we depend heavily on coal-fired energy, and nat. gas infrastructure would take years to complete (not to mention other alternative energy sources) before we could even begin to rein in CO2. It is certainly possible that he is dishonest, misinformed, or ignorant, but that scenario doesn’t pass my reasonableness test (more likely he realized that the Senate will never ratify it). Clinton/Gore jumping the gun on an ill-advised agreement based on questionable, or at best incomplete, science for their own political gain certainly does sound reasonable, however.
It seems you are equating George’s failure to endorse the agreement with a general disregard for the environment and the negative effects of pollution. I think he is being prudent to balance our economic needs (and basic sovereign rights) against the need to preserve and protect the environment. Which view seems more reasonable to you?
Take a look at the people who are complaining the loudest about his position on Kyoto and ask yourself, “What is their agenda?” Take a look at what they are saying and ponder, “Why are they painting this issue in that light?”
You say that nobody can convince you that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are not affecting our climate. That doesn’t sound like a very open-minded or enlightened position. Are you saying you cannot compromise? You won’t accept new information? You reject scientific evidence? Then you are no better off than the enviro-zealots who are propogating all this misinformation. I tend to give more weight to scientific, rational thought and not zealous demagoguery.
You should do the same.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-Louis D. Brandeis
[This message has been edited by Hick (edited 04-04-2001).]
Posted April 05, 2001 - 06:02 AM