<<<I said that most US citizens believe that Bush stole the election, per an “opinion poll”.>>>>
Helloooooo, McFly!!!
<thumping you on the head>
You were asked for a cite. That is not a cite.
Inventing “facts” off the top of your head just doesn’t cut it. Help us to verify your claim.
You’re not very well-versed in the subject of History, are you?
Three words: Ulysses S. Grant (well, okay, that’s two words and an initial). The point is, having a “wild party-animal” (the first time I’d have heard Dubya described this way, but I digress) in office is hardly new. Or surprising.
Last I heard, that’s a negatory on both counts… although it’s been months since I’ve seen an opinion poll, so feel free to provide a link or two.
Also nothing new. We’ve been doing that since Day One. Hell, thumbing our collective noses at other countries is as American as apple pie.
Mmm… apple pie…
It’d also slow down the highly-productive society that produces 30% of the world’s goods. Kind of a trade-off, there, isn’t it?
Perhaps. Or maybe he’s chosen, instead, to focus on the decades of growing animosity that many countries have towards the United States… but, to make things easy, which “nuculear” proliferation treaties has he ignored? Betcha can’t name one without making a quick check via Google, my young wizard friend.
Trust me, bub… our “enemies” have been attempting to collaborate to work against us for a long, long time. I’m willing to guess that they’ve been doing so for longer than you’ve been alive.
We can’t? Then why has a good chunk of the population been in support of those?
What we, as a nation, can’t support is the placing of countries like Sudan on the Human Rights Commission whilst the U.S. gets the boot…
…And just about everything else.
Baloney. You don’t think weapons are manufactured elsewhere? Just how many AK-47’s do you think are made on American soil? (Here’s a hint… “Kalishnikov” sounds Russian for a reason)
That’s fine. People have been doing that since the days of Washington.
Trust me, pal, the game of Politics was perfected by the ancient Romans, and very little has changed in the past two millenia. A handful of idealistic loudmouths aren’t to bring some huge paradigm shift in the space of a few months. You want change? Then start working, just like the rest of us. Just don’t expect to see results very soon.
Who says they have? Maybe you’re just looking in the wrong place.
Spoorge
[sidetrack]Now you’ve got me hungry. American policy-makers traditionally hate conflict with other nations. Americans love internal conflict, in terms of competitive spirit and competition, but hate external conflict. I always chuckle when I read that the US is a “warmongering nation” - it has always been dovish. Carry on…[/sidetrack]
In other words, he’s put the welfare of the nation he leads above the welfare of the 162+ nations he doesn’t lead? Sounds like a Red, White & Blue guy to me! 7 More years!!!Let the rest of the shit eating world take care of their own worthless lives. Bush is putting us first, and that is the important thing. He get’s an A- from me. (He doesn’t get an A+ because I thought he should have bombed the Chinese over that spy plane thing)
And ten points go to Mr. Stewart, for coming up with the oddest nickname for me that I have ever seen… 
Especially when you consider this: Someone (I forget who… someone on the boards) mentioned a while ago that there’ve been several times in our history where the U.S. was in the perfect position to begin a campaign for world domination. Several of the examples that were mentioned were post-WWI and post-WWII, where all other major powers had been sorely weakened.
Funny that you didn’t phrase that as the highly productive economy that consumes 30% of the world’s goods. Guess it doesn’t sound so good that way.
I guess the “slow down” would be a question for debate but on the “30%”, I’d be interesed in a factual cite.
London Calling:
<<I guess the “slow down” would be a question for debate.>>
Kyoto would cost the U.S. 4.5% in annual GDP, I believe the figure was.
The source: Bill Clinton’s Dept. of Energy.
If true, the treaty would be a disaster for the U.S.
And to think that you were calling Hairy on the need for a proper cite!
If true, indeed.
Anyway, how long do you think it would take before a deteriorating environment cost you 4.5% of GDP?
pan
**
I got one that’s even better! Thomas Jefferson owned other human beings and had sex with them. Party on, Jefferson!
**
Is there any concrete evidence that Bush literally stole the election? Is there any evidence that a majority of people believe he stole it?
**
We have an executive, legislative, and judicial branch of government to serve the needs of the United States of America. They are not there to serve the interest of the rest of the world. If we produce 25-30% of the green house gasses then that means the rest of the world produces the other 70-75%. They don’t need the United States to to sign the treaty to do some good. I wonder, how much gas does China produce on a yearly basis?
**
The world situation when those treaties were drafted has changed. I think it is prudent to look towards what is needed in the future but I agree that he’s being a bit hamfisted about it.
**
We shouldn’t waste our time on initiatives that are impotent or not in our best interest. The UN are a bunch of hypocrites.
You can’t complain about violence against women and children but trust nations like the Sudan and Libya to uphold human rights?
Land mines are still an integral part of warfare. I do agree that mines should be made so that they do not sit in the ground 20 years after the war has ended. It isn’t as if all nations agreed to stop using mines.
I think Taiwan if pretty grateful for the small arms and weapon systems we have sold to them. In fact I’m sure Israel and western Europe are also happy that we have sold them these things.
**
There are an awful lot of soviet made rifles in Africa, the mid-east, and other parts of the world. Right now China produces inexpensive landmines that they export around the world.
I don’t like everything the US Government does. But I’m not going to piss and moan that our officals don’t roll over whenever the rest of the world wants us to.
Marc
Don’t believe, know. Cite?
Is that 4.5% off a projected TOTAL GDP; or is it 4.5% off the projected GDP growth rate?
That said, I wasn’t too thrilled with Kyoto anyway – a bit too many holes as it was.
jrd
Weird_AL_Einstein:
Cool! A great way for me to start supporting the Republicans without spending a cent of my own money!
Spavined Gelding:
I assume a benign empire doesn’t suppress free speech, send dissidents to Siberian Gulags, stuff like that. In other words, it might seek to expand its political influence while still upholding human rights.
ITR champion:
1986, when he turned 40. Or is there some disagreement about that that I never heard about?
Oh, that’s a relief. A thoroughly independent and reliable source…
True or not, the alternative to Kyoto is not a disaster ?
I still have this little nagging question about how the rest of the first world manages to keep on target to ratification yet the richest single economy in the world can’t.
How’s George coming along with his “alternative proposals” because we’re getting the impression he’s all for alternative sources of energy - just as long as they’re oil ?
Spoofe:
Do you have a cite to offer as proof of this claim? I am seriously interested. I started a GQ thread on this very subject, but got little feedback. Your statement tends to support the idea that I had when I started the GQ thread.
I hear a lot about how the US produces a large portion of the greenhouse gasses, but no one ever mentions the proportion of finished goods in all of the world’s markets produced by the US to the proportion of greenhouse gasses produced by the US.
That probably isn’t very clear. Put in clearer terms:
What I am trying to find out is if the US produces more greenhouse gasses simply because it also produces more finished goods.
Actually, Clinton supported Kyoto. He was also aware that he would not be able to get it ratified by the Senate, so he didn’t try. He signed it, knowing it would do no good. Bush is perhaps a little more realistic. Why should he take a beating at home by supporting something that doesn’t have a chance of being accepted?
Mort Furd - I asked him, also. If you find a cite, I’ll eat my hat! (and that, folks, is the definition of ‘A hostage to fortune’)
Also, it’s worth remembering that manufacturing some products is more power-intense than others: For example, heavy industry compared with micro-chips i.e. you do need to build in factors other than ‘price’ or ‘cost’ into any comparison, IMHO.
If it helps any by comparison, the UK manufacturing sector constitutes no more than 20% of the total Gross National Product (GNP) there days – the majority of the economy is in the ‘service sector’.
As for Kyoto, three months ago Mr Bush was saying it was “unworkable” - 158 Nations subsequently disagreed. He continues to characterise Kyoto as “bad for American jobs” without any factual support whatsoever - how the hell do the rest of us manage and why do we ?
<<. He continues to characterise Kyoto as “bad for American jobs” without any factual support whatsoever>>>
Actually, I wasn’t aware that there were people seriously positing the idea that Kyoto WASN’T bad for American jobs. There’s a good deal of factual support for that idea.
Here’s some:
http://www.api.org/globalclimate/wefastateimpacts.htm
<<how the hell do the rest of us manage and why do we>>
<comparing historical unemployment rates in Europe and the United States>
Hmmm. I’m not sure you folks across the pond are “managing” all that well at all.
Currently, the rate of insured unemployment in the U.S. is at 2.3%. In the U.K. it’s at 3.2% or 4.9%, depending on who you believe. (Source: http://www.dismal.com )
And we ALL know how well the English economy done by its northern and midland miners. <rolling eyes>.
In fairness, I should note that I’ve been unable to verify the 4.5% impact on GDP I thought the Clinton Energy dept. came up with. My original source on that was a Wall Street Journal article which mentioned it in passing and it caught my eye. I wasn’t able to verify it independently yet. Cato institute comes up with a figure around 3%.
Hmmm. No deal.
I’m sure Europe would love to hamstring U.S. industry, though, because their products would become less expensive compared to U.S. products. I smell more than a bit of crass economic self-interest on the part of some of these European countries. (So what else is new?)
Germany, in particular, is betting the farm on Kyoto because Germany hopes to become a huge supplier of all the additional stuff Kyoto would force industries to buy.
Ok. If Germany wants to make that money, then Germany is certainly free to enact the standards of Kyoto within its own borders. If they also want to subsidize U.S. conversion, ok, fine. Write the check. Meanwhile, we’ll do our own thing, thanks. And sell more affordable cars.
Oh yes. Partying is so Evieeel. What are you, Amish? Drug use and excessive drinking may be irresponsible and unhealthy, but it’s hardly evil.
That’s because roughly half of US citizens who voted had voted for him. And he’s a lot better than that pompous stiff Gore.
Hey, screw the rest of the world. What the hell have they done for us lately?
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot of countries that don’t like us. Maybe it’s because of our disproportionate wealth and influence. Maybe it’s just because some countries are run by madmen. IMO, if you live in a bad neighborhood, having your own big-ass gun works a lot better than asking all the crackheads and drug dealers on your block to sign a promise not to rob you.
Than why don’t you move to a country like Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Somallia, the Congo, or any of a dozen other countries and see if their leadership is more enlightened? It sounds like you need to actually experience life under a REAL evil empire and then maybe you won’t complain so much.
I found a site with information about US emissions. It gives specific numbers, though I didn’t see percentage comparisons. Lot’s of links there, so I’m sure the percentages are to be found.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html
Another interesting site, is one that questions global warming. As in, is this a trend, is it real? Also mentions increased energy cost estimates with emission cuts. Although I don’t promote the site as “gospel”, I think it makes for an intriguing read.
Perhaps SPOOFE should return to studying History as well. Perhaps he should acquaint himself with the life and deeds of Marcus Porcius Cato.