Dr. Tyler; Captain America

Oh God... Wow, at least we don't have to wait five more weeks.

It was a swerve. He's been a commie all along. ::stunners Brian::

...seriously, who the hell is that?

...wtf is that?

My apologies, I was taken in by rhetoric. I should've known that.

Well, the best example I can find of how we're wrecking the environment is the shit geysers of North Carolina, where hog farmers have ponded all the pig shit. This year, with the hurricanes hitting NC, these shit ponds collapsed and it basically obliterated miles and miles of farmlands and streams. Other than that, we've got factories & etc. dumping random chemicals, which can't be good for the environment. We're getting better on emissions standards, except for the SUV issue (which, if you read the evil Kerry's platform, he plans to fix), but we've still got a ways to go. I (and many optimistic liberals) have hope that the introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and other low-pollution vehicles as a viable alternative will further reduce the car pollution in our society as well. Indeed, and as much as it seems that liberals want to "BLAME AMERICA LOL2K3" or whatever used to be Tom Delay's catchphrase, I don't think anyone can deny that fact; we're working towards the end, but we're definitely not there yet and we're not even close. The manufacturing industries (which we're currently outsourcing... hah) still pollute the shit out of their surrounding areas, and we still pour a metric shitload of toxins into the air. We need to keep going, though, and not just settle for it not looking too terrible when we look out the window. I concede this, but the problem is that we haven't outwardly expressed this. Instead, we (and the Bush administration) have said "It isn't good for us. We're not doing it." They should have elaborated on our given alternative if there was one, y'know? It sure would shut moron liberals like me up.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions... See above.

You're sort of arguing a point I wasn't trying to make. The comment was more aimed at "Well, even though it was a retarded treaty, they're at least addressing global warming" more than "This is about global warming, we should've supported it." Basically... we all knew it was going to fail, and any treaty that doesn't unilaterally apply the same standards to everyone is futile. But what bugged me, for the hundredth time (yeah, I know, I'm repeating myself a lot... but really, that's my main point here) is that I disagreed with the fact that we didn't provide a solution. Even though... ...I may disagree with whether the extent that we're doing this is truly effective (see: SUV exemptions), I do acknowledge that we're trying. But really, this is the problem as I forsee it with free trade, as well; our nation, with all its flaws, has always been on the cutting edge of technology and human/environmental/etc. protections. The rest of the world isn't, and it's going to kill us in the end. If we don't participate in this process and have our scientists interact with the rest of the world's (and ultimately, convince them that they're all wrong and they need to stop being a bunch of morons; the developing countries pollute almost as damned much as we do, and that's pretty pathetic) to find a solution to this problem. As I'm not a scientist myself, I cannot truly argue this: ...but, you also can't deny that dumping all this shit into the environment has to eventually take its toll on our livelyhood. I mean, when you can't even fish certain areas of our country because the water is too polluted (different issue, I know, but it's in the same vein), you know we've got a problem somewhere. Just because global warming may or may not truly be a threat doesn't mean that we should turn our heads and ignore the fact that we're polluting the hell out of the air and water; we need to find a solution, be it through chemistry or technology or simply tighter regulations on industrial and individual pollution. I think we're putting the wrong foot forward, though, by recusing ourselves from the global debate on the environment simply because the first treaty was an abomination. We should have told them why we're not signing it and attempted to constructively craft a treaty that wouldn't have benefitted the smaller countries at our expense. We're not in the moral wrong here as far as the environment goes, but we've still got a long ways to go as well (even if it's shorter than most countries' paths). Taking a step away from the rest of the world isn't taking a step forward on our path. Indeed, I prefer debates like this to the childish flame-bait fests that normally take over these threads

I'm not gonna argue with the fact that the EU's feigned SHOCK that Kyoto isn't working out is rather comical, but I do take issue with this: First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit. Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions (and no, satisfying John Ashcroft's libido isn't a good intention) and the ultimate goal--to avert global warming--is one that is vitally important to our economy and viability as a nation. If the new scientific models are correct, the collapse of the Gulf Stream (which would result from melting of the ice caps, etc.) would leave the eastern seaboard a frigid mess and throw off crops and God knows what else. Needless to say, even if you're a skeptic as to how genuine global warming is (and to be fair, you can put question marks on most science, including whether cigarettes cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that it probably does, and just because some studies say that global warming may not be an imminent threat doesn't mean that we should keep dumping on mother nature), we should still be working to eliminate the potential for catastrophic consequences. But, like I said, my qualm with this whole issue is that we walked away and offered nothing in return. We didn't even "demand" (and I use that term loosely) that the more obviously asinine provisions... ...such as that one be changed. We just walked away and told the entire world that they can do whatever the hell we want, because we're not concerned about our environment. In effect, we've become part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution. Kyoto, again, isn't the solution. But we're not even trying to find it in the first place.

I'm not gonna argue with the fact that the EU's feigned SHOCK that Kyoto isn't working out is rather comical, but I do take issue with this: First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit. Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions (and no, satisfying John Ashcroft's libido isn't a good intention) and the ultimate goal--to avert global warming--is one that is vitally important to our economy and viability as a nation. If the new scientific models are correct, the collapse of the Gulf Stream (which would result from melting of the ice caps, etc.) would leave the eastern seaboard a frigid mess and throw off crops and God knows what else. Needless to say, even if you're a skeptic as to how genuine global warming is (and to be fair, you can put question marks on most science, including whether cigarettes cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that it probably does, and just because some studies say that global warming may not be an imminent threat doesn't mean that we should keep dumping on mother nature), we should still be working to eliminate the potential for catastrophic consequences. But, like I said, my qualm with this whole issue is that we walked away and offered nothing in return. We didn't even "demand" (and I use that term loosely) that the more obviously asinine provisions... ...such as that one be changed. We just walked away and told the entire world that they can do whatever the hell we want, because we're not concerned about our environment. In effect, we've become part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution. Kyoto, again, isn't the solution. But we're not even trying to find it in the first place.

I almost agreed with your post for once. That is, until the last sentence. Trying to fix the global warming issue isn't a bad idea. I had a problem with our leaving the Kyoto treaty because we thumbed our nose at the rest of the world. We didn't offer amendments to the treaty, we didn't even offer that we'd research the topic more and come up with a better solution. We just withdrew and "PWAH!"d at the rest of the world. That's bullshit.

Fuck them, too. Kyoto sucks, but what sucks even more is that people think problems will just go away. Global warming is a problem, whether we like it or not; we have to be offering solutions, not thumbing our nose at the rest of the world and laughing at their silly treaties.

Kyoto was horribly flawed and would've never worked. I opposed Bush & Co. pulling out because they pulled a "NYAH! WE'RE NOT DOING THAT~!!!" without actually adding anything to the table. They pulled out without countering the proposal with something else that would've like, actually worked. They didn't want it to work. They just wanted out.

Awww, I hate you, too! This is the happiest day of my life.

Happily, this is the closest I've come to being mentioned in this thread. And I know (note: I don't know) that CWM loves me (note: he probably hates me).

Was that from not washing yourself?

Fucking hippy leech.

It's not on in my market, so... uh...

Yeah... it's okay To be honest, even though I'm hardly the expert of the movies folder (especially since I rarely post here), Affleck isn't half as bad as people make him out to be. He's stiff at times (horribly so in, say, some parts of Sum Of All Fears), but he's hardly this terrible actor that doesn't deserve to be in ANY FILM EVER, as some of you are suggesting. He's alright, and I plan on seeing Jersey Girl with my fiance when I get back in town. All this hatred is kind of absurd.

It's a bad Affleck movie.

::wonders why no one has made the "AFFLECK WAS THE BOMB IN PHANTOMS, YO!" joke::

Okay, let's look at my record here. Supported Al Gore --- LOST (kinda) Supported Howard Dean --- LOST Supported Cruz Bustamante/No on recall --- LOST Support Pittsburgh Pirates --- PERENNIAL LOSERS Support Pittsburgh Penguins --- LAST PLACE IN THE NHL Support Pittsburgh Steelers --- HAVEN'T WON SHIT SINCE 1979 Supported University of Pittsburgh Football (since I started going there) --- CHOKED WHEN I STARTED TO OUTWARDLY CHEER FOR THEM Supported University of Pittsburgh Basketball --- CHOKED TWO YEARS STRAIGHT IN THE SWEET SIXTEEN Supported St. Louis, then Green Bay, then Tennessee, then Carolina in the NFL playoffs this year --- ALL OF THEM LOST So screw it. I'm voting for Nader. Bush is fucked.

Source: CBS NEWS OMG WTF BIAS In the article, Richard Clarke, former chief of terrorism for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II until he resigned two years ago, asserts (among other things) that his requests to focus on al Queda and bin Laden before 9/11 were ignored in favor of action against "Iraqi terrorism against the United States". Given that Clarke resigned (i.e. he wasn't fired) and has been a public servant for 30 years, this could spell much more trouble than the Paul O'Neill accusations (which were effectively dismissed as sour grapes). Considering Bush is running on National Security, this could be a serious dent in Bush's re-election campaign. But hey, that might just be me. After all, I'm an EVIL LIBERAL PARTISAN LOL WHO WANTS TO BRING DOWN DA BUSH! So, thoughts?

Hm.

Ow.