Support President Bush

WOW!! Appears to be much passion on this topic. I'd throw in my 2 cents but no one cares.

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.

WR400Rock. you are a man with a great understanding. I complement you on your insight. I only wish that more people on this site would face all of our problems with a little more open mindedness.Some of us are slightly older than the average TT members and we have had more time to learn the contrast between the truth and bullship. We are seeing the results of thirty years or more of brainwashing by our public school systems.

Oh Boy!This topic has more potential for heated debate than the "too loud" thread! I'm not even sure that I want to ante-up for this one.However,I will make a few quick comments before I duck for cover.I think that there are valid arguments for and against the "threat" posed to the planet by greenhouse gases and global warming.For every so-called expert out there that says we're screwed,there's another one that says everything is O.K. and improving.I honestly don't know who to believe,both sides have very convincing data to substantiate thier claims.Scottyr is correct in stating that the U.S. can thank Canada for large amounts of natural resources which indeed helps drive the economy.In turn Canada's economy is driven largely by what happens south of the border.Canada also has the benefit of being inundated by American culture such as Jerry Springer and Rap music-Thanks. :) So lets not restart the war of 1812,as Canada would most certainly lose this time,what with all those guns that Americans love so much. Speaking of guns,there is a proliferation of firearms in the U.S. which does contribute to some social problems,I'm sure.Personally I think that there's nothing wrong with owning guns for hunting or home protection, but someone should draw the line when it comes to assault weapons.Those types of guns are meant for killing people,(which according to the Pope is still a sin)and not much else.These types of weapons belong in the hands of the military and the police and no-one else.Taffy is correct in saying that George W. should have never renegged on the Kyoto deal.Good or bad,a deal is a deal,and that's how it should have stayed.How can any country have faith in any agreement it makes with the U.S. if this is how things turn out? Besides that,it is unlikely that backing up on this deal will bolster a faltering ecomomy.I think that Bush was the better choice(lesser of two evils) in the recent election,but he does seem not so much a "man of the people" as a "man above the people".The world needs an American President,not a Monarch.After all,if the President begins acting like a king,it would be just like colonial rule and there might have to be another revolution.Hey-maybe that's what everone has all of those assault rifles for! :shocked:At any rate,I think I'll just bury my head in the snow and try to avoid the stray bullets flying up from south of the border. :D

Your right Pete - another heated one. I've not said anything yet. Oh well - here goes:

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!

This is to all the people who believe that all the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels has no effect on our health. Go to your garage, close the door, start your car, sit back and see how long it takes for you to notice the effects of burning fuel. I know this seems a bit dramatic but where do you think all the exhaust going that we are spewing out into the environment? Certainly you people from California are aware of the effects of air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels!

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 :D)

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.


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).]

The Kyoto Protocol is a good idea but a bad implementation. Most 3rd world countries with no regulations on polution whatsoever haven't signed up. The USA should take the lead but they should make sure someone is following our example.

Are we having fun yet? :)

Hick,those are some good points that you made.Most definitely food for thought.I especially found your Urban vs. Rural idea very interesting.What I meant by the proliferation of guns causing social problems was simply that increased and relatively easy access causes or certain problems in society,or compounds existing ones.Crimes will still be committed,but when guns are involved,it's more likely that someone will get hurt or killed.Any kind of altercation is worsened by the inclusion of a gun,be it a domestic dispute at home or a drunken argument at the bar.I think that criminals are emboldened when they have a gun and will do things that they might not normally have the cajones to do.I believe these things to be true as much as I believe that there is no easy solution to the problem.One thing is for sure -gun control(ie.registration),is NOT the answer. We are in the midst of a heavy-handed big-brother type of gun registration fiasco up here right now.It's become a huge waste of tax dollars as well as a serious infringement of gun owner's rights.I'm still not too sure about the assault weapon thing, but I will admit that I would like to try one out(on a target)before I made a final decision.As they say-never judge a man....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now