Preview preview preview. Man, I forget one time…
Spoofe, I wasn’t addressing the state of the markets, as I suspect you know. Economic slump? I think that’s a little OTT as an analysis of the current situation.
I would certainly hope that further restrictions would be troublesome to polluting industries, that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
And why tremble? I implied no threat.
If I should ever care to argue that republicans are hard-of-thinking reactionaries who are a danger to us all, I’ll be sure to call you as my first witness Spoofe, OK?
Meanwhile please feel free to continue masturbating over W. Sorry for putting you off your stroke.
As noted here:
**
Looks like red herring is a popular seafood with Democrats, too, Collounsbury.
Dammit, Uke Ike is on to us. Our march to greatness under Darth Dubya will not be complete until the nation is nothing but tree stumps, polluted skies, SUVs and fat stock portfolios.
:rolleyes:
Those of you with your panties in a bunch over this are aware, I assume, that the U.S. has never been bound by the Kyoto treaty because the Senate rejected it three years ago by a vote of 95-0? But it’s only Bush (who had nothing to do with it) and the Republicans who are “stupid, dangerous, hard-of-thinking, short-sighted, addlepated” and, worst of all, “inconsiderate” right? No doubt all the Democrats who voted it down had principled reasons for rejecting the treaty.
Nope, Democrats are arseholes on this issue too. Bush just seems intent on rubbing his controversial agenda in everybody’s face. I’m sure i recall him talking about being inclusive and consensual just after they anounced the final final outcome of the election. That didn’t last long, eh?
Abandoning Kyoto is of course symbolic. But it is very bad symbolism and bodes no good for the environment at all.
I did not call republicans hard-of-thinking, reactionaries, or dangerous, by the way. I may believe it of some o’ them, but i certainly didn’t say that here.
Milossarian:
If you wish to restrain your knee-jerk ideological readings, you might take note that I assigned no particular partisan identity to the red herring. I was and am concerned with the factual issue, not the partisan blame game. Not even in my comments on the current administration and the mode of repudiation, which focused not on party affiliation but on aspects of a sub-set of the policy makers.
So, your point in mentioning me in re democrats was what?
Now, otherwise, Kyoto needed to be dumped and frankly I think Japan and Europe are relieved to be taken off their own petards. And I’m actually glad it was finally done in the open. However, it was done in a manner which appears undercut a good rational criticism.
In re the ratification: while true we never ratified, we are signatories. That places us in a bit of a grey zone in re the protocol — I don’t recall the specifics per duties and manner of withdrawal in the document itself— but in any event is a step up in the international PR game from being a non-signatory. Reputation issue, but that’s what the multilateral game is all about. Again, this came off in a manner making us look like a big stogy smoking knucklehead.
That, IMHO, is bad international PR management. Obviously per today’s NYT’s article, Whitman understood that: to quote from a memo by her which the WP quoted,
“There’s a real fear in the international community that if the U.S. is not willing to discuss the issue within the framework of Kyoto, the whole thing will fall apart,”
…
“Mr. President, this is a credibility issue (global warming) for the U.S. in the international community,” she wrote. “It is also an issue that is resonating here at home. We need to appear engaged and shift the discussion from the focus on the K-word to action, but we have to build some bonafides first.”
Clearly Ms. Whitman understands the game. Some others in the admin don’t.
SPOOFE, I wish you only knew what hell I’m going through right now in macroeconomics. Did you know that if stop for minute and actually clean up this dump that we’ll actually save money? [url=www.reporternew.com/1999/texas/air0524.htm says that 2.5 billion dollars could be saved annually in the Houston area alone if we reduce premature deaths caused by VOC’s (volitale organic compounds) and other pollutants.
As soon as I get this paper done, (it’s due april 20th) I will be more than happy do discuss the economics of cleaning up our environment. And I’m sure my prof., who has a phd in environmental economics, would be more than happy to answer any of your questions.
IMHO, I think Bush Jr. is the most embarrasing thing to happen to this country since Richard Simmons.
I have to read it all later…but it’s good to know that our “President” is willing to make the whole goddamn world suffer to spare us a few pennies… Heaven forfend Americans should suffer the slightest pinch in their wallets. Better to see the rest of the planet burn to the ground than have us experience the tiniest of hardships.
It’s nice to know he’s thinking of us.
<vomits>
stoid
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
“Bush just seems intent on rubbing his controversial agenda in everybody’s face.”
Translation:
“Bush is highlighting the fact that he really is the President and has every perogative to do as he be doing, and there’s not a thing we can do about it. Barbara Streisand, save us!”
Keep it coming, it’s highly amusing!
Vanilla, my friend, I fear that all this is happening precisely because so many people did vote for Nader.
Sigh…
Nice ot see you copping to it. 
Zarathustra, I think (and I say I think, because I generally only listen to the political crap with half an ear) that Democrats aren’t raising a ruckus because the Prez is Republican, but because throughout the campaign he ran on a more moderate, middle-of-the-road platform, and as soon as he was elected turned around and mooned the Dems who hoped he wouldn’t fuck up his promises too badly. Thus the irritation about Bush’s outgoing controversial agendas. Yeah, it’s a rare president who sticks to promises made during the campaign, but how many have dropped them as fast as Bush did?
I gotta agree with you, though, a lot of this is amusing. Especially ‘witty’ attempts at shoving words into the mouths of complainers. :rolleyes:
Oh, sure…tempt me, why don’t you 
Sigh.
1392 more days…
Hmm. If further restrictions on the economy would be “troublesome”, what would New York underwater be?
Don’t tease the animals, matt…
Vanilla is absolutely right: if Nader were president, global warming would no longer be a problem. You see, when Hell froze over, all that ice would act like an enourmous heat-sink and the world would experience an immediate cool-down.
As an added bonus, all those flying pigs would be a good food source for combating world hunger.
Giant HIGH FUCKIN FIVE! Excellent, man! Good laughs over at my house!
stoid
still chuckling…
Oh, shit. Nimune, pal, you just shot to the top of my list.
I still think Bush is an asshole, though.
That was funny Nimune.
Flymaster, Don’t Go There!
Hey, I for one, and maybe only one, believed we could’ve had a 3 way split in November.
Call me idealistic.
Or…Maybe if Gore had realized he was losing the environmentalists, he could’ve MAYBE tried to win them over, instead of sliding to the middle. He’s a doofus for not doing so.
Vanilla(not her fault)