|
Guest
|
Re: OT - Hypocrisy? You decide
"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:lb4bc1p24tufnjp8jt0djancsdpuqj1f7r@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:21:49 GMT, Dbu_^ <ntspam@spc.om> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Perhaps your postings need to be a little more lucid. You also should
> >have your own original ideas and not be reposting junk from moveon.org
> >or the DNC.[/color]
>
> LLL's post nothing BUT recycled drivel. I've said it before and,
> barring anything unforeseen such as unexpected clarity from the
> left, I'll be saying it again.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.[/color]
I may have said it before but just in case I overlooked it, I'll say it now:
You're a moron. I can't believe you have the gall to call me "killfile
fodder."
Let's review your own and your fellow traveller's posts on this thread,
shall we?
First, you posted a link regarding a CNN report saying that the EU's
environmental agency was warning that Kyoto goals would be hard to meet and
called for more work to meet them. It included no response from EU or
European officials abandoning the target - or the chase.
However, you asked if this was "hypocrisy?" Well, for a start, it's not.
The Europeans, generally, are concerned that climatilogical forecast are
accurate and are working to meet them. That this is difficult is not in
question and the Eurpeans are apparently willing to risk economic growth and
statndard-of-living to meet Kyoto goals.
"Gentleman Jim" then replied with an entirely unsubstantiated allegation,
"it's about money
and the haves and have nots."
You then replied with the entirely unsupported allegation: "it's about
handicapping the U.S." and BenDover jumped in as Greek chorus on that, also
without offering any facts or cites. He also added that "government never
creates wealth," a contention that I challenged later with specific examples
of government leadership (but hold that for later).
You agreed that that "was the crux of Kyoto" without offering any facts or
cites and then referred to it as "An insidious plan from the left wing,"
dismissing the notion that people responsible for the Kyoto protocol might
actually take the threat of global warming seriously. No, you are content
to baselessly impugn their motives. The risks, after all, if the experts are
correct, may be immense. Do you blindly sprint across the expressway, even
at night? Why not? The risk may be small (at night, especially) but the
risks are immense.
"Learning Richard" then added something entirely unhelpful but I was
nonetheless happy to see he took the time to insult you.
"Dbu_^" did actually add a report of what Bush had said on the subject. He
didn't bother to include a pointer to the full text of the President's
message or even the date for ready reference but, for the Neo-Conneds, this
was veritable bounty of actual facts. Except, of course, that the President
is very likely wrong about who the "big polluters" are in terms of
greenhouse gases (with our standard of living, it's almost certainly us, but
I'll eventually check up on thsi). In any event, the President's message
was "why bother doing anything to save the planet if China and India
aren't?" How Bush that is and I'm sure it strikes a responsive chord with
you. I guess the idea of "leadership" means nothing to any of you.
Moreover, why not do what we can to postpone disaster?
Then you responded:
"Ironic when you consider what their fairly recent large forest fire
did to the environment. It was either a NASA or NOAA official that
said the fire spewed more into the atmosphere than a century of
automobiles."
No actual attribution or date of the fire or anything solid for the matter
of that. Nor did you respond when "FanJet" asked "WHO said that?"
"Dbu_^" came back with observations on China's pollution again, no
identifieable facts, figure or cites.
This led you to say we should put the "kabosh on China's wishing to purchase
Unocal" without explaining why and without apparently considering the
question of where China got the money to purchase Unocal in the first place
and why isn't the President doing something about the balance of trade?
This goes back to Dbu_^'s observation that China's running a lot of steel
mills and his failure to realize they're doing this because they're shipping
goods HERE, in part to satisfy the demands of Wal-Mart (which you've all
been admiring in recent posts, check Frontline on PBS.ORG for support of the
Wal-Mart - China connection I am drawing here).
And, finally, in this sub-thread, nobody rose to explain what might be done
about China, suggesting you don't really understand the threat the "FanJet"
describes when he talks about China as "Alkida INC [sic]."
Then we come to my post which, as mentioned, cited specific examples of
government leadership creating wealth.
"Dbu^" responded to the thread but ignored the examples, focusing instead on
the difference in opinions of climatologists - and, I guess we should
include - atmospheric scientists.
Well, I had the opportunity to hear F. Sherwood Roland speak on this and
then to ask a brief question or two myself and the consensus of opinion is
that "something is going to happen" unless we get global greenhouse gases
under control. He's in a posistion to know. Those who say "nothing will
happen" are most definintely in the minority. Roland has considerable
expertise in atmospheric science and his investigation and study have been
proven correct.
I pointed this out in a later post.
Anyway, Dbu_^ then called me a "left wing extremist," again without basis or
citation.
Your reply, calling me "killfile fodder" was nothing but dog-pile on the
liberals.
You took exception to my suggestion that you and your cohorts here get their
science from AM radio but you'll have to forgive me for that: if it looks
like a duck and quacks like a duck... After all, you and your colleagues
have assumed I'm a "left wing extremeist" based on a few positions that I've
taken and can't possibly know the whole package. Of course, the thought
that I voted for Kerry is enough for you (and I'll confirm that I did, just
in case I've never made it plain). However by that calculation, the "left
wing extremists" compose 48% of the country, which hardlyl makes it look all
that extreme.
You followed this with a dig at climatologists not being able to predict
next week's weather, which is an astonishing revelation of your ignorance,
since that's not what they do. However, I'd like to piont out that
meteorologists have been steadily improving over the last 30+ years (I no
longer curse them as I used to) and climatologists are actually pretty good
at predicting things like whether or not we'll have a bad hurricance season
and figuring out the relationiship between sea surface temperatures hither
and yon and the aggregate amount of rainfall that certain regions will get.
Which led to further unsupported attacks on climatologists and atmospheric
researchers and why/how they get grants. and, sort of skipping freely
thruogh the posts/replies now, impugning their motives as nothing more than
tearing the country down.
When I asked why they'd do that, since they live in the US, too, the
question was ignored. Nor did anyone bother to tell me where Phil Cooney
has gone.
The remainder of the thread has gone pretty much the same way (I'm not going
to point-by-point summarize the rest of you and your fellow Neo-Conneds'
asinine posts).
You're full of it. No facts, lots of allegations, and people who disagree
with you are simply "killfile fodder."
And Rove conned you. He conned you because you don't think for yourself,
you don't ask questions, you're intellectually lazy, you're prejudiced and
you're the sort of coward who'd prefer to ignore problems than face them.
You'd rather have a fast simple "solution" spoon-fed to you than to
acknowledge hard realities. You answer questions with slogans I hear all the
time on right-wing AM radio.
This country is being challenged in a lot of ways and, whether you choose to
believe it or not, greenhouse gases are increasing and they pose a grave
danger. Creative and thoughtful solutions, maybe even daring solutions, are
going to be required to ensure the safety of future generations of
Americans. I can see that you won't be a part of those solutions.
Here's just one final thought for you and, frankly, I hope cramming one last
thought into your head makes it explode, the long-term solution to our
energy problem (yeah, we have one of those, too) is an opportunity. Like so
many other opportunities, however, it requires investment, risk and some
sacrifice. We're in debt to the rest of the world by some $40
billion/month. The Federal deficit is $400billion/year, thanks to the
leadership of Bush. Where will we get the investment money to assume a
leadership position in the energy industry of the future? China's got a lot
of money to spend. Do you think that might put them in the driver's seat on
thsi?
Thank God they're merely trying to buy Unocal, rather than investing in
developing the energy technology of the future.
|
Linear Mode
