7/11/ FTW
Created on: September 27th, 2006
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.07) | 46 | 1 | 39 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,209 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 44 | https://www.bing.com |
| 4 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 2 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 1 | http://my.xmarks.com/ |
| 1 | http://www.google.com |
Bush said the following to the people of Iran:
"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," the U.S. leader said.
"Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions," he said. "Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."
There is zero evidence suggesting Iran is working on nuclear weapons.
In response to this the following day. Chavez said:
"The devil came here yesterday, he came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."
He sure as sh*t did talk as if the world was his, as if it was his placed to dictate to the people of Iran the intentions of their own government.
Facts are really useful when trying to lay propoganda on ytmnd. Go away.
Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tex. Bush flouts the authority of the U.N., asserts the world either supports the U.S. or terrorists, bullies other countries to disarm while we have few inhibitions about making more nukes, ignores the vast majority of the scientific community and dismisses the Kyoto Protocol as hogwash, and freely violates the Geneva Convention.
Chavez may be guilty of undue arrogance and bluster, but who is a Bush supporter to call him on that?
We have a trump card, we are a democratic republic. Now, I will be mighty entertained if you post the other countries that didn't sign the kyoto treaty. Go ahead, liste em. The Kyoto treaty was nothing but global communism in action. By the standards of Kyoto other countries could greatly increase their pollution output. No wonder they signed it. Why not just admin you are a Stalinist, bent on crippling the U.S. so that we will be forced to succumb to the socialism you so desperately desire?
Even if Global Warming was happening, nothing in the kyoto treaty could even put a dent in it. The kyoto treaty is nothing more than trying to cripple us economically. To "level the playing field" with us and 3rd world countries. Why, here, here's you an article to read from CNN of all places http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/28/news/international/pluggedin_murphy.fortune/index.htm
No. You're wrong, again. Go educate yourself on forms of government before you talk about them like you know something. Also. That is an editorial. From FORTUNE, of all sources. Economists and libertarians, largely speaking, naturally dislike the idea of the Kyoto protocol because they believe it will reduce their profits.
LMAO. The very person you worship Marx even states that socialism is just the next societal step towards communism. Communism is the ultimate goal. And yes, our economy far outweighs the concerns of tree huggers who spew bullsh*te about global warming, that the human race couldn't even cause. The people who created the kyoto treaty could give a crap about that either. Their goal is crippling the evil capitalist nations.
There's an overwhelming scientific consensus supporting global warming, Tex. Almost every credible source that opposes it has ties to industry that would require them to do so. That said, you don't conduct a debate by making false statements about the other person in hopes of shifting the focus off the weaknesses of your own arguments. Capitalist nations composed the protocols, Tex, and the ones who've embraced it have yet to experience a financial slump.
The Kyoto Protocol can only be "economic sabotage" for a country that refuses to change. You have to admit that by adopting its standards, we would be inclined to change in a positive way; More 'true' mass transit infrastructure, less dirty coal power, perhaps even less reliance on oil so that we don't have to deal so much with the quagmire the Middle East has degenerated into.
By the terms of the Kyoto treaty, smaller countries can actually produce more pollution. So far Canada, Japan, and most other large nations cannot even meet their goal that they agreed to. Global warming is only supported by scientists who's income (via grants and books) depends on them supporting global warming. There are several university professors that have many differing views on global warming. From it being caused by less moist land, to natural temperature progression of the planet.
Even if I did define myself as a Marxist, that's not the same as a Stalinist. Also, Communism is an extreme and almost always authoritarian perversion of the concepts of Socialism. Try to blur the line between the two all you like- I define my ideology, not you. Also. If you took the time to research the Global Warming debate, you'd find that the opposite is true; most of those that deny it do so because their paychecks rely upon it.
Allow me to quote wikipedia: "While there is almost no debate amongst most mainstream published climate scientists, there is an ongoing debate about global warming theories in the popular media and on a policy level, particularly whether there exists a scientific consensus sufficient to justify concerted international action to attempt to ameliorate its effects (see Kyoto Protocol)." Instead of trying to deny Global Warming exists, you could just take the honest route and say you disagree with the means of
Here's an interesting tidbit. If warming continues at the current rate, in the next hundred years the temperature will rise a minimum of 2.5 degrees farenheit, to a maximum of around ten. If average temperature rises more than five degrees, Greenland's ice will begin to melt. Greenland's melting would raise sea levels by around seven meters. This would annihalate the Nile Delta, Bangladesh and several other highly populated areas. A rise of only two meters would make South Florida unihabitable.
HOLY #@$@ Wikipedia?!?! Well I'm just pwned right there. Why even bother trying to argue with that? 20 years ago the same amount of "experts" thought we were going into another mini ice age. Global warming is the biggest sham to ever have been pulled over the public's eyes. The "scientists" that tout it are the ones that depend on it for a paycheck, how can you get a grant for something that isn't a "crisis"? Or who is going to buy your book if no one thinks it is a threat?
Keep your head in the sand, Tex. Maybe it'll save you. Who is going to make money by denying it exists? People who like the status quo. Who like to keep the flow of oil into their SUVs, power into their McMansions and cash into their wallets uninterrupted by anything so unimportant as the idea their homes could be underwater in a matter of decades. Because it looks very much like the warming is happening, whether we contribute or not.
I listen to the professionals, by the way. And what I'm hearing from the ones not in the pocket of the Cooler Heads Coalition seems to be that global warming is happening, and we're the main suspect. As to the "Cooler Heads Coalition", well... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooler_Heads_Coalition
"And generally speaking again – it's all generalized – the left-of-center people are more concerned with humans and human beings and human concerns; to the care of humans, not the care and worry about property rights. That's generally been true. And Bush is pushing this country farther down the hill, faster than anyone has before." Why yes, he did have a point...
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link