| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2003 : 15:10:45
|
(To be fair, does anyone have anything like this for the Democrats?)
25 Rules For Being A Good Republican by Michael Holman
1) Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock, which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for your "recovery".
2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
3) You have to believe that the US should get out of the UN, and that our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives but it needs to punish anyone caught having private sex with the "wrong" gender.
5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.
6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.
7) "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.
9) You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.
10) You hate the ALCU for representing convicted felons, but they owed it to the country to bail out Oliver North.
11) You have to believe that the best way to encourage military morale is to praise the troops overseas while cutting their VA benefits.
12) You believe that group sex and drug use are degenerate sins that can only be purged by running for governor of California as a Republican.
13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.
14) You have to believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to alienate our allies and then demand their cooperation and money.
15) You have to believe that government medicine is wrong and that HMO's and insurance companies only have your best interests at heart.
16) You have to believe that providing health care to all Iraqis is sound government policy but providing health care to all Americans is socialism personified.
17) You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and global warming are "junk science", but Creationism should be taught in schools.
18) You have to believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.
19) You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
20) You believe that government should restrict itself to just the powers named in the Constitution, which includes banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
21) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while those of Republicans are a "private matter".
22) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades but that Bush was right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional 9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth.
23) You support state rights, which means Ashcroft telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he will allow them to have.
24) You have to believe that what Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest but what Bush did decades later is "stale news" and "irrelevant".
25) You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is just dandy. |
|
|
interloper
= Cult of Ray =
440 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 16:58:25
|
Take no sides for they are both retarded.
"If you don't like my potatoes, please don't dig up my vine" - Elmore James |
 |
|
|
Thomas
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1615 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 18:05:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
(To be fair, does anyone have anything like this for the Democrats?)
or Independants?
Thomas
"Our love is rice and beans and horses lard" |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 06:36:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
(3) You have to believe that the US should get out of the UN, and that our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
16) You have to believe that providing health care to all Iraqis is sound government policy but providing health care to all Americans is socialism personified.
25) You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is just dandy.
These were the most amusing ones to me...
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
TarTar
* Dog in the Sand *
1965 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 07:02:52
|
The one rule about being a Democrat is: You must spend all of your time talking about opinions that you disagree with, to the point that you don't remember your side of the opinion.
And I would say that most of my political beliefs lean towards being a democrat, liberal, left-winger, but I don't really like people who get worked up about politics. Sure, it's important and some people have to take care of it, but idealism can be such an abstract thing since no one is never 100% in agreement with anothers opinions, even if they think they are. It could be anything from the person you hold the closest resemblance to in politcal preferences not agreeing with a proposal or bill that you are all for, or someone you hold close resemblance to in political preferences preferring Welch's jelly over Smuckers. Sure, minute, but there's still a difference in your opinion. Okay, this post is getting out of hand. I need to find something to do today. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 10:04:43
|
| More silly stuff for the ignorant. For this to be funny it needs to be true. Anyone with a reading level above 3rd grade would realize that. |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 10:33:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
More silly stuff for the ignorant. For this to be funny it needs to be true. Anyone with a reading level above 3rd grade would realize that.
Sorry you didn't then. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 10:55:05
|
Come on Dallas, much of that is VERY true, particularly when describing certain hard core conservatives. And there is no way to not make fun of Bush. Every time he speaks, he mocks himself, he really doesn't need any help. Jon Stewart of the Daly Show could just run a tape of the latest Bush speech every night, and make no jokes about it, and it would be hilarious. Anyone with a reading level above 3rd grade realizes the man is not a good speaker. A very similar list could be made about the Democrats, and it would be equally amusing.
From a strictly factual stand point, however, I don't see how this list is not "true". Conservative or right wing thinking is against gay marriages, abortion, universal health care, trade with Cuba, etc, etc. They also beleive the gov't should stay out of the lives of the American people, which certainly conflicts with their stance againt any lifestlye they deem "deviant". I thought I didn't want to start a big debate here, but maybe I do. Tell me, Dallas, how DO the Repulicans (not you in particular, but the party itself, though I'm glad to hear your views), view these matters? What is the "party line"? You don't have to tackle the whole list, but some of these points seem to be major contradictions. |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 14:33:36
|
Here's to Ol' Tub o' Lard hisself, America's favorite addict-- Rush Limbaugh...
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html
"It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/gophotwrush.html |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2003 : 23:12:36
|
Aw come on Dallas...i moved cities in Grade 3...
Curious to see a response to Mike's q's. |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2003 : 17:37:38
|
Well I can't disagree with any of these.
Soo...who wants to start the abortion debate topic? I don't think I'm brave enough
"I joined the cult of Frank / and...umm..." |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2003 : 19:41:13
|
I've been critical of Mr. Noisy in the past, and I am *way* liberal (notice that I didn't say I was a *democrat* - I'm not too fond of bi-partisan politics). However, Dallas, I'm about tired of your rhetorical bull-fucking-shit. There's not much of a difference between ignorance and knowledge, recognizing ignorance is a tenet of knowledge-cum-epistemology, but all you're spouting off here is opinion! Now quit telling Dave he's wrong and tell him WHY he's wrong if you want to make an effective argument.
And please don't use the, "WELL IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT THEN YOU'RE AN IDIOT," rebuttal that you're incredibly fond of - the only one you're making look bad there is yourself.
-Jimmy M. |
Edited by - JamesM on 11/30/2003 19:43:16 |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 06:12:14
|
It is ignorant to assign those beliefs as Republican. It defies history. Democrats had control of all 3 branches of government as recently as Bill Clinton, controlled the House for decades, yet the Cuban embargo is in place. Kept on trading with China. Clinton adn the Dems also coddled North Korea, allowing them to build the nuclear capabilities that we will all have to sweat for the near future.
The prayer in school garbage. Prayer in school is not a part of any Republican platform. Some conservatives favor it, but, the VAST majority of those offer up a moment of silence (good for muslims or Buddhists or whatever).
The sex stuff defies history as well. When Republicans in office do the type of crap Clinton did they lose their jobs. Remember Bob Packwood? Livingston from La.? Newt Gingrich after his 'affair' and subsequent marriage to a staffer? All of them resigned in disgrace. No hipocrasy whatsoever.
Pinning tobacco on the Republicans? Nice try. Republicans have finally made inroads in tobacco states in the last decade after generations of democratic representation. Kentucky just elected its first Rep. Governor in 50 years or something. Members of both parties have sold out at on this one. Again, all 3 branches of government where under Democratic control under Bill Clinton. Why didnt those good tobacco hating democrats do something??
#20, Democrats are absolutely against gay marriage. Tom Daschle was on Meet the Press last week favoring the "Protection of Marriage act". This is an American position, favored by a large majority and both political parties. You can disagree with it, but, pinning it on the Republicans is folly and defies reality. But hey, if you are into creating your own realities, go for it.
Nobody cares what Clinton did in the 60's (what did he do anyway?), they care that he lied about sex with underlings in a case that was accusing him of sex with underlings. That is defined as Sexual Harassment in the US. If a person of power forces himself or makes unwanted advances toward an underling, that is illegal. Clinton lied under oath to hide this pattern of abuse that he had and that was absolutely critical to the case that was being brough by Paula Jones. That is illegal. EVERYONE in the US has certain rights under the law. An Arkansas judge, appointed by a Democrat, whose husband was a campaign contributor to Bill Clinton, decided that the case had enough merit to proceed. Clinton thwarted the law in an attempt to obstruct justice. Do you believe that Clinton was innocent? If so, why didnt he go to trial with a judge who is aligned with him politically, whose husband supported him financially, in a state where he is revered???? Again, create your own reality if you'd like, but, what innocent guy lies, eventually pays damages to the plaintif, loses his license to practice law, and has millions to spend on legal defense????
I could go on. This is too easy though. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 06:52:35
|
Speedy - I just read your post in total. I have been moving all weekend and with the holiday wasnt online since my post on this thread. Hell yes its easy to make fun of Bush. Its FUNNY too. I love the clips on Letterman of Bush trying to make a joke, coughing, spitting while he checks if anyone is watching. Etc. Etc. I think Jon Stewart is hilarious and he was equally hilarious when he was making fun of Clinton. I can see and enjoy the humor. However, to take the leap from ineffective speaker (at times) to dunce doesnt wash. He graduated from Yale and got his MBA from Harvard business school. Governed a state that has a larger GDP than most Euro countries and is now President of the US. We should all be so dumb.
I also disagree that he cant put 2 sentences together etc. His speech in the UK was great. Many of his speeches after 9/11 have been historic. Will he often drop a hilarious maliprop? Hell yes and I will laugh as hard as anyone.
The issue with the list is that it is either false, or it takes positions held by both parties and ascribes them only to Republicans. Kyoto was voted down 100-0 by the US Senate. Disagree if you like, but, dont pin it on Bush or the Republicans. It is an American position.
Rush Limbaugh does drugs and now drug use is a Republican position?? Name one Republican who has said Rush should NOT be prosecuted for any laws he broke. This is a great example of the ignorance of the list. If the Dems are the party of compassion and understanding for drug abusers and the Reps are out to hang 'em all, why would the Dems compassion not extend to Limbaugh?? The answer is because they dont agree with the way Limbaugh thinks. Blacks or Hispanics on the Supreme Court or the Courts of Appeals are only acceptable if they think the same way Dems do. If you dont think like Tom Daschle, and you are a minority, you cannot be a federal judge in the US according to the Democrats.
#9 is just a ad hominen attack and makes no real point. What in the world does that have to do with Republicans?? So, my point on this list is that anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 10 years would realize that it is propaganda and junk without basis in fact. its base is hatred for those who disagree with them.
What the current political climate, and lists like these that Dave keeps generating, is exposing is the complete lack of tolerance from the Left. Anyone who disagrees with them is hated. The angry Left is alive and well and they are bringing the Dems down from the inside. No President in the last 100 years has had his party INCREASE its presence in Congress in midterm elections until the last election. The Republicans are winning Governor offices in states that haven't elected Republican governors in generations. Hell, Schwarzenneger(sp) rec'd 60% of the vote in a state that the majority of the population identifies itself as Democrat. Add to that the 10-15% of the vote that Republican Tom McClintock got and Democrats need to reassess why they are losing the hearts and minds of so many of its own. |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 07:03:25
|
can i ask one question re your Arnie Schawarzenagger comment:
Do people in the USA actually believe Arnie was elected because of his political beliefs etc?
Or do people see it all as a big joke like the rest of the world?
|
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 07:15:50
|
I think he was elected because he is Ah-nuld. If he said he was a Dem, he would have been elected with 70% of the vote.
His positions can hardly be called Conservative. He is moderate at best and mostly liberal on social issues.
|
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 14:24:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Speedy - I just read your post in total. I have been moving all weekend and with the holiday wasnt online since my post on this thread. Hell yes its easy to make fun of Bush. Its FUNNY too. I love the clips on Letterman of Bush trying to make a joke, coughing, spitting while he checks if anyone is watching. Etc. Etc. I think Jon Stewart is hilarious and he was equally hilarious when he was making fun of Clinton. I can see and enjoy the humor. However, to take the leap from ineffective speaker (at times) to dunce doesnt wash. He graduated from Yale and got his MBA from Harvard business school. Governed a state that has a larger GDP than most Euro countries and is now President of the US. We should all be so dumb.
I also disagree that he cant put 2 sentences together etc. His speech in the UK was great. Many of his speeches after 9/11 have been historic. Will he often drop a hilarious maliprop? Hell yes and I will laugh as hard as anyone.
The issue with the list is that it is either false, or it takes positions held by both parties and ascribes them only to Republicans. Kyoto was voted down 100-0 by the US Senate. Disagree if you like, but, dont pin it on Bush or the Republicans. It is an American position.
Rush Limbaugh does drugs and now drug use is a Republican position?? Name one Republican who has said Rush should NOT be prosecuted for any laws he broke. This is a great example of the ignorance of the list. If the Dems are the party of compassion and understanding for drug abusers and the Reps are out to hang 'em all, why would the Dems compassion not extend to Limbaugh?? The answer is because they dont agree with the way Limbaugh thinks. Blacks or Hispanics on the Supreme Court or the Courts of Appeals are only acceptable if they think the same way Dems do. If you dont think like Tom Daschle, and you are a minority, you cannot be a federal judge in the US according to the Democrats.
#9 is just a ad hominen attack and makes no real point. What in the world does that have to do with Republicans?? So, my point on this list is that anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 10 years would realize that it is propaganda and junk without basis in fact. its base is hatred for those who disagree with them.
What the current political climate, and lists like these that Dave keeps generating, is exposing is the complete lack of tolerance from the Left. Anyone who disagrees with them is hated. The angry Left is alive and well and they are bringing the Dems down from the inside. No President in the last 100 years has had his party INCREASE its presence in Congress in midterm elections until the last election. The Republicans are winning Governor offices in states that haven't elected Republican governors in generations. Hell, Schwarzenneger(sp) rec'd 60% of the vote in a state that the majority of the population identifies itself as Democrat. Add to that the 10-15% of the vote that Republican Tom McClintock got and Democrats need to reassess why they are losing the hearts and minds of so many of its own.
what are you saying? Are all americans dumb? Is that the american position? You seem like a smart guy, and i can't say i'm much of a leftist myself. However, liberalism (in the more theoretical sense) seems to be the obvious choice if you want tolerance, not conservatism. Socialism and conservatism is the same thing - big, powerfull governments that knock down opponents like tyson in the old days. And really, really dumb leaders. They hide behind religion or "values" but are a bunch of spoiled brats. And Bush is one of them. It seems to me that you are more angry with the left than you appreciate Bush's intellect. You have the holy priests screaming for holy war against the great satan (america if you'd forgotten), and bush yodling about the axis of evil and god's own country (again, america...). These are rethorics aimed at people with 3. grade eductaion. Again, are all americans dumb? Is that the position? |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 14:43:16
|
I have no idea what you are talking about Ivandivel. I'm not trying to be combative, I just dont know what you are referring to.
Socialism is about HUGE government that collects all wealth from the populous and redistributes it to suit itself. Conservatism is the polar opposite. Small Central government with local control and individual freedom to be succesful and pursue happiness.
America has been called the great Satan since Jimmy Carters days at least. 9/11 was concieved and plotted while Bush was Governor of Tx. Bin Laden declared War on the US when Bill Clinton was President. The terrorists and Islamist extremists dont hate conservatives (or liberals), they hate any society that is free and any society that is not run by Islamists. Period.
I think something is lost in the translation because I dont get the "all Americans are dumb" line of commentary. If you care to elaborate I will respond. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 14:57:57
|
i disagree, in terms of authoritarism - they're the same. A constant plague for the whole fucking world the last century. the "are all americans dumb?" thing was far-fetched. It was your "american position" conclusion on the kyoto vote. Which really was a dumb thing. However, the fact that one can repeatedly use primitive religious metaphors (religion is not primitive, but how these people - Busch included -uses them are quite primitive) AND get away with it makes it legit (coorect word?) to ask if "all" americans are dumb. And there is no way that I am going to accept a culture-social constructivistic explanation from you Dallas (that's for the leftis). After all, you have the money to educate your kids. One should expect more from "the world's greatest country". Fuck, to even say that...the ignorance is overwhelming. So, what's your position on that? Does intelligent men (with integrity) speak of an exis of evil? Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 15:08:54
|
Yes an intelligent man speaks of the axis of evil. I agree with the sentiment that there are certain nations that are led by individuals who have the capacity and willingness to create instability in the world, via weapons of mass destruction, for the sole purpose of prolonging their reign. That is the common thread of the 3 nations. Pointing that out is not ignorance. It is a wakeup call. Do you not think that the oppression in Iran, NKorea and Iraq is wrong? Iranian students who are putting their lives on the line by demonstrating as they did earlier in the year deserve what they get? The starving North Koreans? The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's buried in mass graves?
You have an opinion about the Kyoto agreement that lots of people (including scientists) disagree with. Even if there is a majority in the world that agrees with you, many do not. You are so sure of yourself and your position that you denigrate anyone who disagrees as dumb. That isnt debating, its rhetoric.
The Kyoto vote was an example of how the list presented was fallacious. Republicans and Democrats alike voted against it. Again, disagree if you will, but, blaming GWBush and the Republicans defies reality. If that makes you judge all Americans as dumb, so be it. I disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 18:55:14
|
how about only one rule?
- be a stupid sheep, "baa baa"
the same applies for democrats. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 21:16:18
|
| amen Ebb - you said it. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 22:47:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Yes an intelligent man speaks of the axis of evil. I agree with the sentiment that there are certain nations that are led by individuals who have the capacity and willingness to create instability in the world, via weapons of mass destruction, for the sole purpose of prolonging their reign. That is the common thread of the 3 nations. Pointing that out is not ignorance. It is a wakeup call. Do you not think that the oppression in Iran, NKorea and Iraq is wrong? Iranian students who are putting their lives on the line by demonstrating as they did earlier in the year deserve what they get? The starving North Koreans? The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's buried in mass graves?
You have an opinion about the Kyoto agreement that lots of people (including scientists) disagree with. Even if there is a majority in the world that agrees with you, many do not. You are so sure of yourself and your position that you denigrate anyone who disagrees as dumb. That isnt debating, its rhetoric.
The Kyoto vote was an example of how the list presented was fallacious. Republicans and Democrats alike voted against it. Again, disagree if you will, but, blaming GWBush and the Republicans defies reality. If that makes you judge all Americans as dumb, so be it. I disagree with you.
Yes, you have scientists that would agree with the US position on the Kyoto thing, but hello; how many? And how many good ones? I don't denigrate anyone that disagrees with me as dumb, i am only asking myself - and you - if you are the dumbest nation we got on planet earth. i think it is a legit question. one may wonder, right? I have never liked the religion-politics mix. It is wrong - no matter if you are in teheran or washington. And it's the same thing. So i am asking myself if this is because you are dumb. It might be something else, i know, but i really don't see it (maybe i am the dumb one).
You think the quasi god and jesus quack-quack make sense and have it's place in politics. I don't, and i would feel a lot calmer about the world's situation if the "greatest country" had a leader that didn't speak like a priest.
Ok, and my replies have nothing to do with the democrats - republicans discussion. I just jumped right in and started bashing bush. Because he is weak, it is an imoral thing to do, but i am evil. Couldn't resist. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 06:26:46
|
Bush talks like a priest? That is dumb. It is also dumb to make up opinions for someone you dont know. I have never subscribed to any opinion that religion and politics should mix.
Comparing Tehran to a US President who is a Christian is horribly uninformed. Again, it is an exercise in creating your own reality. It is simplistic at best. Extremely simplistic. Go live in Tehran and compare it to the US or any civilized nation if you want to make such simplistic analogies. You would never do that. Nobody would. Yet 10's of millions of people from the world flock to the US with all its massive imperfections.
How do you define dumb? I would define a nation as dumb and uncivilized if they allowed 10,000 people to boil in the summer heat. What an atrocity. Chirac, the genius, on holiday. |
Edited by - Dallas on 12/02/2003 06:32:19 |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 07:02:54
|
How come the US will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol agreement while almost every other country has/will?
are there some Scientific studies that American politicians (doesn't matter from which side)are aware of that the rest of the world do not know about, or are there additional agendas behind their decisions?
now, of course it could be mentioned that other countries (i think Canada and Australia are 2) have said that they will also not sign it if the US don't as evidence of it's ineffectiveness, but I don't think that it's relevant at all.
(i'm asking these questions as a fairly uninformed person on this whole issue - these things just come across to me from what i have read/seen) |
Edited by - benji on 12/02/2003 07:03:25 |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 07:24:38
|
Lots of countries havent and wont. Russia announced it will not adopt it.
Some of those against it are against it for economic reasons, the costs of reducing the emissions on businesses is too burdensome for them. Others are against it because of the fact that emission standards are tougher on certain countries than others, thus the cost of reducing them is higher on some than others, so its a fairness issue. Some are against it because they feel like global warming has not been proven or they interpret global temperature changes differently than the 'greenhouse' folks.
Strategically, the US should have waited until all of the other countries ratified it IMO. That would prohibit countries like Canada and Australia from blaming the US for its non-ratification. IMO if Canada and Australia think that Kyoto is wonderful and necessary to save the world they should be courageous and adopt it. Especially if the issue is as black and white as the supporters think it is.
Here is a link to an environmentalist and former member of Greenpeace who criticizes the science behind the Kyoto movement. He started out believing like the masses, but, when confronted with the facts from his own research and study is now against it:
http://titles.cambridge.org/catalogue.asp?ISBN=0521010683
This link will show you what countries have the highest outputs (guess who!)
http://maps.grida.no/kyoto/
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 07:34:29
|
Actually, Canada has committed to Kyoto despite the fact that our southern neighbours would prefer to spend the money on bombs.
America's stand on Kyoto is purely economic... it is going to cost a lot of money to bring down emission levels. A LOT of money. To government and to industry. If they don't sign and, say, Canada does, this makes the US all the more attractive for people looking at opening a plant or relocating existing plants. Economically speaking, it's not in the US' best interests, but that goes for most countries including their two neighbours on the continent breathing in the fumes they refuse to commit to reducing. A few countries will actually benefit economically due to solid policy in place between 1990 and now.
You can understand the government's position - industry is vehemently against this and it will cost them money. Threats to relocate or cut jobs to compensate for lost income weigh heavily on a politicians decision to back the accord or not. If almost every senator or congressman (person?) you know is going to vote 'no', are you effectively going to vote 'yes' and lose your job for a vote that couldn't possibly turn the tide?
Yes, there are scientists who say that we are not making a significant dent on the environment from greenhouse gasses. Who say that global warming and the greenhouse effect are myths. Carbon dioxide levels haven't changed that much in the last century, or the temperature has increased but it's cyclical, or...
And there are those who say it does exist and show us holes in our ozone layer. They show increased cases of skin cancer, changing weather patterns, and, in direct contradiction with other scientists, carbon dioxide levels rising abruptly over the last 100 and moreover the last 50 years as well as the beginnings of an exponential warming trend. They blame catastrophic weather and 'freak' snowstorms/flooding/etc.
Believe who you want. For me, it's the latter. And even if it weren't, there's NO WAY that all this garbage we spew into the atmosphere is good for the environment or for us. NO WAY that I'm willing to accept that those growing holes in the ozone are not there. That the recent need for a UV index has nothing to do with human activity. That the alarming increase in asthma and allergies in general is just an unfortunate fluke of nature.
So the government can hide behind these scientists who claim there is no such thing as global warming since it's more convenient an excuse than saying, "I met with industry and we agreed that we don't want to spend money". They can claim that it is an unreachable goal, or unrealistic, or whatever they want. Most of the rest of the world is, as usual, wrong. Funny how they were able, though, to have the vision to put a man on the moon just for the sake of being first to do it. What happened to this America?
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 07:57:27
|
I don't know how that turned into an American thing, I was really just trying to comment on people against Kyoto because there are people who say there's no such thing as global warming.
There are also scientists who claim there is no link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer, or eggs and high cholestrol, or...
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:01:38
|
Thanks COF for the clarification on Canada. I was taking the info in Benji's post literally (even though he hedged - my bad).
I disagree with your opinion that the US decision was 'purely economic'. I have seen and read much of the debate and it factored in many issues. For example, you dont actually have to reduce your emissions to comply. You can 'buy' emmissions credits from countries that are not industrialized and emit until your hearts content. That is a real flaw if you are actually trying to reduce emissions that intelligent people can disagree about. 3 of the worlds worst polluters, using 50-60 year old industrial technology, Mexico, China and India are completely exempt. That can legitimately turn people against the agreement.
Its just not as black and white as some would have you believe. Over 17,000 scientists signed this petition:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [Global Warming Petition, OISM]
I sure as hell dont have the answer. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:08:28
|
I dont buy the tobacco analogy. 20 years ago maybe. What scientists are claiming no link between Tobacco and cancer?
I am immune to the America stuff it comes up so often. I didnt take offense. I applaud Canada for putting its money where its mouth is. This all came up because of the goofy list that assigns blame for unpopular positions on one party when it has been voted on and endorsed by both. That is how this came up.
A couple of posters requested that I debunk the list and so I did. |
Edited by - Dallas on 12/02/2003 08:09:15 |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:42:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Bush talks like a priest? That is dumb. It is also dumb to make up opinions for someone you dont know. I have never subscribed to any opinion that religion and politics should mix.
Comparing Tehran to a US President who is a Christian is horribly uninformed. Again, it is an exercise in creating your own reality. It is simplistic at best. Extremely simplistic. Go live in Tehran and compare it to the US or any civilized nation if you want to make such simplistic analogies. You would never do that. Nobody would. Yet 10's of millions of people from the world flock to the US with all its massive imperfections.
How do you define dumb? I would define a nation as dumb and uncivilized if they allowed 10,000 people to boil in the summer heat. What an atrocity. Chirac, the genius, on holiday.
I never compared those places, read the fcking post. Yet you manage to write a whole paragraph about it. Is that dumb? Or is it creating your own reality? I compared their line of arguments. There are plenty of religious references in Bush's arguments and speeches. I see that you don't want to discuss that, and it's ok. I am in the wrong thread. Anyway, I like the USA, i have even lived there. Nice place, nice people. Despite Bush's impression on the world (and common, it is not all socialist propaganda), might be smart people there too. And i never claimed that the french were too bright either. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:45:10
|
Glad no offense was taken.
Surely you must agree that emissions should be reduced, though?
Your point on emission credits is a good one, and I've heard it before. The problem is that you want to reward the countries who've reduced their emissions and penalize those that don't. By buying credits from the countries with credits to spare (low emissions) you essentially have the emission high countries penalizing themselves. Eventually, it's going to be worth the money, even for a wealthy country, to reduce rather than just buying credits.
Now the stuff with the third world countries or those that tread its dark borders is tricky. How do you force a country without the money to feed its own people or provide a decent living for them to spend tonnes of money on modernizing equipment and reducing emissions. You really can't. However, I'm unaware of total exemption being doled out... I was under the impression it was set up so that until they had reached certain minimum levels of stability and growth that they were exempt.
So, the third world countries join and are temporarily exempt, all the while deriving an increasing amount of money from selling their credits to richer polluters. Money that they can use on other things like hospitals and so forth, and, from what I remember, they gain more credits by modernizing and reducing in their exempt state. It is much cheaper for a country like Mexico to reduce emission levels because the they simply need to come up to date. For countries like the US and Canada, we need to look ahead to technologies and research that has only been started and not even implemented yet. So they would stand to make even more money on these credits since it costs them so much less to reduce emissions.
Effectively, you are sponsoring third world development while at the same time, deriving the benefit of their credits.
It's not perfect, definitely, but since when has anything of this magnitude ever been?
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
Edited by - Cult_Of_Frank on 12/02/2003 08:52:32 |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:45:12
|
"It is wrong - no matter if you are in teheran or washington. And it's the same thing."
That is a quote from your post. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:51:33
|
COF I see your point. But some people have a fundamental disagreement with that type of wealth re-distribution. I also dont consider China or India or even Mexico 3rd world countries (maybe Mexico). India is a high-tech magnet right now. China is a near-superpower.
And yes I agree that emmission reduction is a worthy goal. |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 08:52:03
|
Personally, I think that it has not been proven that the current environmental changes are caused by greenhouse gases.
the important thing I think is that it is pretty fucking tricky to distingish between naturally occuring processes and those which are cuased by human intervention in this sense. And for the argument to stand up, it needs to be proven that greenhouse gases are exclusively at fault, and the problem with this is that we don't have enough data to play with. accurate climate records only go back a hundred years maybe and although information can be gleaned from various proxies (ice cores, lake sediment etc) interpretation can have such a huge impact on the conclusions drawn that one scientist can produce quite different results than another depending on which side of the fence they're coming from (unfortunately speaking from personal experience here).
And our knowledge of the interactions between the different aspects of the natural environment is still growing and new discoveries associated with disproving such a such a theory relating to such and such a climatic event that all that anyone can be certain of is that no-one really knows much.
and the public get caught up in the middle of this and it becomes an emotive issue - which it really should be, but with the lack of ultimate knowledge on the subject at the moment - this just causes confusion and trouble.
take the end-Cretaceous extincton event for example (i know, probly not the best one): public perception is that the big old asteroid hurled into Yacutan Peninsula in Mexico and sent up a huge fire ball filled with dust and lotsa of other shit that blocked out the sun which killed all the dinosaurs that hadn't already been burnt to death.
but if u actually look at the actual data - the cycle of life (with the dinosaurs at the top) had actually been crapping out before this climactic event actually took place - millions of years before - which isn't really along time when it was 65 millions years ago anyways, but what if a similar situation was occuring nowdays (figuratively speaking) - think a million years is a wee bit longer than the current length of accurate climnate records....and hence the problem.
It is much more exciting to believe that the asteroid did it, as it is much more exciting (well not really) to believe that greenhouse gases are producing the current tiny changes in certain climate variables.
Climate change has been occuring for for as long as the Earth is old - 4 Billion years.....and although humans now are undoubtedly causing the most significant extinction episode ever experienced on the Earth, the link between greenhouse gases and climate change (in my opinion) is far less concrete.
opps - don't think that makes any sense. |
Edited by - benji on 12/02/2003 09:00:36 |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:13:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
COF I see your point. But some people have a fundamental disagreement with that type of wealth re-distribution. I also dont consider China or India or even Mexico 3rd world countries (maybe Mexico). India is a high-tech magnet right now. China is a near-superpower.
And yes I agree that emmission reduction is a worthy goal.
Regarding wealth distribution, yeah, that's an entirely different topic.
However, while I do not support China or India not being a part of the accord, I wonder whether their declanation is at least partly influenced by America's decision to do so. Since both are so rampantly attempting to move themselves up to an even playing field with the US, if the US doesn't, they won't. Or perhaps the other way around, that the US feels compelled to maintain it's lead and is not willing to spend the money if countries like China and India won't.
The problem of getting everyone on board is obviously huge. As soon as you lose some, you lose more. Canada was very divided since we already find ourselves losing business to the south without adding a disadvantage to industry on our side, whereas the question would have been much less controversial had the US been a part of the agreement.
This same thing goes for the poorer countries. If they are not on board, then there is no hope that they will reduce. Getting them on board with a temporary exemption that will allow them to eventually modernize their equipment at the expense of heavy polluters still meets the goal of reduction. Although it's not equal, it is hopefully a little closer to fair, and it gets them to sign the treaty, so..
These are all obviously tough questions and decisions...
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
