First of all, you are right about the thin reference to Hangley. The first time I found that snopes article was some weeks back, when I was researching this very thing to determine for myself whether it was believable or not. I ran into a number of articles about it, some of which had more detailed information about Hangley’s response to questions. When I dug up this link, I didn’t read it again, I just assumed that it had all the information I had read some weeks back. Mea culpa…but that may also partly explain why I find it more believable than you do.
I was defining the words you were using.
Since no one can confirm it for you except George Bush, it looks like you are presuming Hangly to be a liar.
Apologies are always accepted.
And now I think we can agree that we see this differently. We have each championed our view, and there you have it.
Yes, brilliant analogy. The two situations are almost identical!
It is* better to pour less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Would you not agree? Therefore, a treaty which mandates such, would be better than nothing, no?
And, as I have said before, the KP creates a framework for future action. This was, in fact, THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT! Nobody has EVER suggested that KP will solve our global warming problem. NOBODY. What it does is create a partnership between nations to work on the problem.
Why do I have to point this out to you? Isn’t this bloody obvious?
Right, I meant to say that Bush was opposed to the treaty because he thought it would harm the economy. Maybe it’s because “harm” and “environment” are such natural pairs when it comes to Dubya.
Well, obviously, in a presidential campaign you can’t come right out and say, “Gore is a liar.” But, Bush said as much with his snide “bring back integrity” comments.
Is that right? So making an error by substituting “environment” for “economy” automatically strikes me off of your “people to take seriously” list, then, eh?
Uh, no. Nice of you to completely disregard the context of the quote. Not the sign of somebody wishing to engage in a rational discussion. That was completely NOT the point.
Somebody was claiming that Bush having a wife and two kids was some sort of sign of greatness. It was this claim I am disputing.
Just to point out that Bush is hardly the ideal family man that his supporters like to paint him out to be. And, the exact same people who criticize Clinton for being a pox on “family values” will praise Bush for his wife and two kids.
Again, you have to take the comments in the context they were written in.
Apologies for not having the patience to search google to find some decent cites from reputable media sources that have investigated where Bush got his money for his various business forays.
I am reasonably sure he didn’t get it from delivering pizza’s at night while in college nor from saving what was left over from an entry level college grad job. That said, would like some reputable cites so I’m not blowing wind.
Well actually, that’s a pretty accurate summary of my feelings on this subject. From a slightly different perspective, though, I suspect. It’s a lot easier to dismiss a subject as “stupid” than to admit that you were wrong. And if it’s not worth arguing about, why did you bring it up in the first place?
You don’t consider it noteworthy that, except for Upper Elbonia and a few of its South Pacific allies, nobody actually ratified this “treaty” that was supposedly so vital to the survival of the planet? Or do you not see the difference between a feel-good photo op and actual implementation of an agreement?
You could as easily tout a treaty that would ban all combustible engines, and would thereby reduced greenhouse gas emissions to zero; would that be a good thing, despite the little side effect of decimating the global economy? Well, that’s a bit of a straw man, but all the same, why is it so hard to accept the idea of a cost-benefit analysis? If a “treaty” takes too much of an economic toll for the sake of too little of an environmental benefit, why not scrap it?
It will be an essential part of your education, young man, to discover that the things you feel so impassioned about may not be at all obvious, let alone “bloody obvious”, to other rational human beings.
And as for your “framework of future action” and “partnership between nations”, I humbly submit that carries all the value of bucket of warm piss. If you really want to stymie any and all efforts to improve environmental conditions, go ahead and throw it into an endless UN committee. You won’t even be able to get past the argument over whether Zionism equals pollution.
After “preview”, the name of your second new bestest friend is “dictionary”:
How did a promise to bring integrity back to the White House translate into a “false and defamatory oral statement”? He didn’t say anything about Mr. Gore. If voters looked at Mr. Gore (and his master) and saw the very antithesis of integrity, surely that was their problem and not Mr. Bush’s?
[sub]hey, if Scylla can be a pirate, I can be Emperor[/sub]
doth issue the following Edict unto the Teeming Ones:
Whereas it is self-evident that all SDMB posters have internet access and are equipped with a browser; and,
Whereas all manner of Dictionaries abound on said internet; and,
Whereas it roils and disturbs the sublime tranquility of the Emperor and his more sensible Subjects to have definitions posted for words already quite within the vocabulary of the meanest intelligence:
From this day forward, posting excerpts from a dictionary on the SDMB is verboten, forbidden, illegal, illegitimate, and right out!.
So let it be written, so let it be done! To hear is to obey!
That’s because the Democrats believe that there are things more important than partisan politics. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Clinton was in office when the events of 9/11 took place, the GOP would be recycling their “we can support our troops without supporting the president” mantra.
As for Dubya himself… I wouldn’t say that I hate the guy, at least on a level where I wish he was dead. I do have nothing but utter contempt for him, however, based on his well-known ignorance and his indifference in changing that (being dumb is bad; enjoying being dumb is worse). Everything I’ve seen indicates that he’s gotten through in life solely because of the privileges of his family name – if he had to live as an “ordinary Joe,” I imagine he’d be living in a trailer camp collecting unemployment while getting boozed up on Budweiser every night.
Still, the way I see it, the nation (barely) survived eight years with Ronald Reagan, so we can probably survive George W. Bush. The important thing in my mind is to make sure that safeguards are in place so the GOP doesn’t hijack the 2004 election results – but if anyone knows anything about breaking the rules, it’d be the Republicans…
How are you so certain of this? And please don’t tell me that so-and-so used the line after the missile attack on the Sudan or some such thing; it’s pretty clear that 9/11 has caused a historically unusual de-emphasis on partisanship, and the reaction to the latest cruise missile attack is not comparable to reactions to 9/11.
But if you have some rationale for it, it’d be interesting to hear it.
