Yes we are right. Now that you have seen the light please dress in a blue sheet with stars all over it and go to NYC and sell flowers to passing cars while you spread the word
The year to year shifts can be explained by things like sunspot activity, El Nino, vulcano activity etc. while the most logic explanation to the long term trend on the grph is human activity. Notice its not only the average over a couple of years that are growing but also the local lows and highs. The graph is clearly showing an upward and accelerating trend in the periode where we have accelerated our industrial activity.
And really, what sacrifices would people have to make? Buying somewhat more fuel-efficient cars? Given the likely consequences of continued global warming, it hardly seems such a sacrifice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kyoto wouldn't make any difference even if we signed on. Whatever we did would be overwhelmed by those nations (India and China in particular) not bound by the protocols. And as for the sacrifices people would have to make, what do think would happen to the coal miners of West Virginia? The sacrifice you'd make might be fairly insignificant. For somebody else, it could easily be catastrophic. It will take more than just driving more fuel efficient cars. Compared to what people drove 25 years ago, we are already doing that. The problem is: the total miles driven has gone up dramatically eclipsing any progress we've made on average fuel efficiency.
The greenest policy we could pursue would be to fix our cities. (I'm serious.) If our cities were more attractive places to live, more people would choose to live there and mass transit would become a viable option in more places. We would also relieve the pressure on our green spaces and for the kicker you'd get brownfield redevelopment.
[quote]And it seems clear to me that the non-biased sources show a consensus that global warming is occuring to a dangerous degree and could be prevented. <hr></blockquote>
I AM UNBIASED. That's the whole point. It is the environmental lobby that IS BIASED. I am willing to admit that global warming is quite possible. And I am the first to say we should be pursuing alternative fuels. But, I'm not just going to accept the environmental line either. I also think I was doing the only tthing a layperson can do with a graph like that, which is point out things that don't make sense. True, there is an upward trend. But there are also sharp declines. It seems to me that if greenhouse gases were truly affecting the atmosphere then it would be a smoother progression. It isn't a NASDAQ chart, afterall. (well, bad example I suppose!). Just a thought.
I think spaceman is partially right. If people could find cities attractive . . . but that would also demand that people find public transport attractive at least part of the time. It works in Europe . . I have lived there and I know that htere are many benefits to having a transportation system that is not only for those to poor to buy cars.
As for China nad India, it is true that they would continue to pollute, especially China which is staring at employing the worlds largest coal expenditures without the pollution controls and efficiency that we have (because of those THUGS the environmentalists) now if the world found it to be in all of our interests to tackle this problem ( a "manhattan project for alternative energies" as one scientist put it) then we might very well come up with something . . . but the two problems of 1> people (hear Rush and gang and) don't believe that the environment IS really in any way their interest. and 2. no funding for research, because of #1, keep this from happening.
now,
SDW you are completely biased. THe way you spit out the word "liberal" every chance you get as a curse word shows it clearly. You exhibit the first quality of an ideologue; namely, that their prejudice is invisible as a prejudice that they have themselves.
The way that the graph is read by scientists is in terms of the over-all trend towards increase. The sawtooth quality is due to consistent variability, the over-all trend IS NOT CONSISTENT and hasn't been. As far as ice cores show it hasn't been for millenia with regards to CO2.
I live not far from Portland Oregon where they have a light rail system that seems to work! I wish we had one here. That's part of the problem. Not every city can find a light rail project cost effective. We are a lot smaller than Portland. Our bus system is better than it was before ( a few years ago it only ran until 6:00pm ) but, isn't enough of an answer.
Who's we? The majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat. Kyoto wasn't squashed because of that, it was because most third world nations were allowed to bypass the regs that the US and Europe would have to follow-China, for example. The treaty should just be rewritten and reapplied to include all countries......................................... ......
[quote]SDW you are completely biased. THe way you spit out the word "liberal" every chance you get as a curse word shows it clearly. You exhibit the first quality of an ideologue; namely, that their prejudice is invisible as a prejudice that they have themselves.
The way that the graph is read by scientists is in terms of the over-all trend towards increase. The sawtooth quality is due to consistent variability, the over-all trend IS NOT CONSISTENT and hasn't been. As far as ice cores show it hasn't been for millenia with regards to CO2. <hr></blockquote>
1. To me, liberal IS a curse word. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I disagree firmly with the overall liberal agenda. Deal with it.
2. Your second paragraph seems to contradict itself. According to graph, is there an upward trend or not? What do you believe.
And finally, I can't help notice how long-winded your posts are. That last part ("You exhibit the first quality of an ideologue; namely, that their prejudice is invisible as a prejudice that they have themselves") is truly rich. Please, stoop to my level for a moment and enlighten me with the meaning of that statement. I can only assume your statement boils down to "SDW holds prejudices and doesn't event know it"...........which is quite false.
You're a moron, and you ARE biased, as is shown repeatedly by your childish venom . . .
...most "liberals" are not as agenda driven as you clearly think they are, (and as you are)...(some liberals are, and they too can be as idiotically closed minded as people here-abouts) However, most people who you call themselves 'liberals' but who don't wear it on their sleave, merely believe in a balance between infrastructural needs and absolute anarchy. Liberal became a swear word when Rush Limbaugh became the media/corporate sweatheart that he was for many years... and still is.... just not on television. People, listened to him and programed themselves like bits of software, swollowed everything he said... every spitefull lie and distortion of the truth, and, he and his funders shifted the debate so far to the right that every clone, or "ditto" head who has a bit of bile in their gut and is looking for people to blame anything on have created a fictitious monster: the "L" word.
And what is so hard to understand that what one (a scientist for example)is looking at when they see this graph is an over-all rise. . . . if you take the median average of the graph - -which also shows the ordinary variances - then you see a very clear steady rise . . . what the hell is so hard to see and understand here . . . are you completely blinded by your ideaology to the point that you can't even read a godamn graph
I am amazed by people on these boards who cannot respect the differences in political thoughts of others to such a point that they will hate them AND will distort what is right in front of their nose just to hold on to the PARTY LINE!!!
Who is the one is is pissed off right now? I was asking you a simple question. Believe it or not, it wasn't entirely clear how you felt about that graph. Maybe I just didn't read your posts correctly, but it seemed in one sentence you talk of the overall trend being upward, and then you said:
[quote]the over-all trend IS NOT CONSISTENT and hasn't been. <hr></blockquote>
That's where you lost me. Perhaps just a miscommunication. I still don't trust that graph for a second, though. Here is why: It may be showing too short a time compared to the total history of the earth. It could be like looking at a stock's snapshot performance over, say, a week. One could easily make it look like the stock was going up when in reality it is going down. If the timeline is too small (like, say, a hundred years compared to ONE BILLION years) it might be deceptive. This is called data manipulation. But, you know that becuase you are smarter than I am, apparently.
[quote]People, listened to him and programed themselves like bits of software, swollowed everything he said... every spitefull lie and distortion of the truth, and, he and his funders shifted the debate so far to the right that every clone, or "ditto" head who has a bit of bile in their gut and is looking for people to blame anything on have created a fictitious monster: the "L" word. <hr></blockquote>
Well, that is just ridiculous. You blame Rush Limbaugh? Truly amusing. And I just don't buy the argument you keep repeating, that the political spectrum in the country has moved so far to the right that what was once considered liberal is now considered "ultra-liberal". I just don't buy that at all, and if anyone keeps sticking to a completely unsubstantiated argument/point it is you, with that particular one. In fact, I could make an argument that the country is getting closer to the LEFT. I would have about as much support as you do for your argument.
I don't really see why calling me a moron is required. I have certain beliefs that I feel strongly about. I feel my beliefs are suportable and I have solid reasons for having them. I can indeed think for myself, despite what you think. I am not convinced global warming is real, though I am certainly open to the possibility it exists. I am further open to the possibility that we, as humans, are causing it, but I'm not convinced about that either. We just dont have enough data. Though, I agree we should, as I said before, practice a "better safe than sorry" policy sooner rather than later, with regard to our emissions and fuel use.
Once again, the TRUE head of idealistic fascism has reared its ugly head, that being the LIBERAL MINDSET. If you don't agree with it, you are stupid. I see now.
This is bullshit. We should teach our kids more history and english and less science and math to even out the widespread discrepancy in education of these areas. Then we could produce a generation of kids who actually care about the world at large and not some US/ "ME"-centric world.
God dammit we're not the world's envy. We're powerful for sure (we could kick the **** out of any nation)- but we have our problems much like every other country. STOP thinking we're all that and a bag of barbeque chips and START thinking we're a great country among many other great countries with good but different ideas.
Oh, OK. I forgot how dumb I am. Thank you very much. Please enlighten us further with your superb academic snobbery.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Being snobbish yourself to "academic snobbery" is itself- SNOBBISH. Have you not heard the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right?" Well, probably not considering that you probably are reciting that "Eye for an Eye" part of the Old Testament. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I will hereby dedicate myself to becoming as intelligent as you. But, being the flag waving, Bush voting person I am, I will need to become immortal, so that I might have the time required to overcome my supreme stupidity.
Oh, and this just in:
This thread I have started is beginning to prove a point I only heard put into words the other day: Patriotism is not being taught in our liberal schools, and is now considered to be "taboo" by many. The difference between you and I is that I LIKE being called a flag waiver. I think it is a good thing. I think being patriotic is a GOOD thing. I appreciate the nation I live in. I appreciate my freedoms and a nation that gives me the ability to speak and generally act as I want. I realize that not all places on earth are like this. We have problems, and I know that. But, I truly DO believe we are the "best" nation, so to speak.
The problem in this country is the people that have stopped believing in the greatness of America.
There is an extent to which one may appreciate one's country. That extent, or the line that one crosses, lies where one's patriotism evolves into isolationism- or even worse- jingoism.
What most of us are expressing our serious concern for is your JINGOISM. You express your patriotism quite zealously- yet mainly through hostility towards other nations. Simply loving the good ol USA is one thing but lashing out at every country that doesn't like us shows us the distinction.
The sad part is that there are many informed, intelligent Americans... hell, some of the greatest minds in the world are American... but so few compared to the ignorant knee-jerks. They are whispers in a stadium of cheering idiots.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Poet! Great quote!
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>SDW2001's response to what Stimuli writes:
Why, thank you! I love being called stupid! What is truly funny is how people actually criticize people like me for thinking their nation is "the best". God forbid! I must be a facist! How dare I suggest that some of the totally failing nations on earth try democracy! How dare I suggest that some nations envy us for our money and power! What totally absurd suppositions! </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what? **** you and your ****ing sarcasm. Who the **** do you think you are? Sarcasm really pisses the hell out of me. Like people MUST belittle each other. You just snobbishly criticized someone exercising their academic prowess (quite snobbishly yourself i might reiterate), and now you must snobbishly think you are better than Stimuli- the man-the poet? GOD. Speak sincerely, dumbass.
In a nutshell. You post on here claiming that countries hate your country because they are jealous of your might, power and wealth.
In response to that I said it was nonsense. Later on I explained that it is nonsense because it´s simply not the reason. I told you what the reasons were.
Let me generalize for a bit...
Europeans, including myself, have digs at your country because we dislike overconfidence like you show in your original post.
Muslims, of course not all of them, hate your country for its support to Israel and for its continued presence in the Middle East. Others, however, are happy you are there. However, that is never talked about since these days any Arab must be a muslim and thus a terrorist. That´s the way GWB wants it.
I´m not going to deny that people take the wee out of the USA but in my opinion that is in no way related to a bunch of terrorists who think they have a good enough excuse to kill civilians. You say, and rightfully so, that you have a right to be pissed off by what happened on 9/11 but don´t the Arabs have a right to be pissed off by things that the US has done against them?
Now, like I said, there are things about America that I don´t understand or simply dislike but I´d still love to live there for a while in the near future. Not as long as GWB is in office though!
So in the end, what I wanted to say, was that you´re right to claim that countries hate the US. Just not for the reasons that you suggested.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great, poised post. Are you in any way affiliated with ETA? (Not like many of our US-ONLY posters here know what that group is...)
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>
Who's we? The majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat. Kyoto wasn't squashed because of that, it was because most third world nations were allowed to bypass the regs that the US and Europe would have to follow-China, for example. The treaty should just be rewritten and reapplied to include all countries......................................... ......</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't referring to Kyoto, I was referring to Europe generally speaking. I pretty much dig their world views. BBC all the way!
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>You're a moron, and you ARE biased, as is shown repeatedly by your childish venom . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Pfflam... we MUST get together sometime for laughs and drinks over a decidedly pro-democrat environment. We'll bring the girlfriends/wives for some more engaging discussion. Whew <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You know what? **** you and your ****ing sarcasm. Who the **** do you think you are? Sarcasm really pisses the hell out of me. Like people MUST belittle each other... GOD. Speak sincerely, dumbass.
Who's we? The majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat. Kyoto wasn't squashed because of that, it was because most third world nations were allowed to bypass the regs that the US and Europe would have to follow-China, for example. The treaty should just be rewritten and reapplied to include all countries......................................... ......</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. This point is not covered over here in Europe. The main US objection, at least one of them, is that developing countries like China for example are *excluded* from Kyoto. Now, a country like China, with over 1 billion people and the fastest manufacting growth of any major country is excluded. China's growth is something like 8% which is Huge and its only growing at the expense of other SE Asians, etc. The manufacturing base, where a large amount of pollution is created, is happening in countries like China as well as first world countries. So, when Europe critises US for Kyoto, they should be aware of China and aware of the economic disadvantage. Unfortuneatly, most people here in Europe just do the knee jerk anti-american kyoto bashing without ever bring this important objection. I follow news here avidly and this is never (or rarely) mentioned.
There is a lot of resentment/(secret envy or frustration of Europe beuracracy/being sidelined?) here of US actions and Kyoto is one of the talking points among a host of other issues. but, for Kyoto and US, this is widely misunderstood and US should do a better job explaining this reason.
My feeling is that if you do a deal like Kyoto, you need to *address* the major objections from major players. The US is a major player and sometimes its better to address or comprimise (or include China for example) to ratify the treaty. As it stands now Europe is frustrated without US and in process of ratifying Kyoto without US or China. They blame US for this. It would be better to get this worked out esp since China is now in the WTO. Why was China excluded from Kyoto? That is my question and why didn't Europe listen to US objections on this point?
The Americans are not stupid and are very aware of the environment and greenhouse emmissons. The idea that Americans do not read or care about international press or issues is false. For Europeans to just fall back to very sterotypical resentments and to underestimate Americans on a number of issues is not right. There is a definate fragmentation going on between Europe and US and this is, in essence, the general thread of this topic. If we are allies, we should act like allies and not like pissed off siblings. These are my observations.
[quote]The Americans are not stupid and are very aware of the environment and greenhouse emmissons. The idea that Americans do not read or care about international press or issues is false. For Europeans to just fall back to very sterotypical resentments and to underestimate Americans on a number of issues is not right. There is a definate fragmentation going on between Europe and US and this is, in essence, the general thread of this topic. If we are allies, we should act like allies and not like pissed off siblings. These are my observations. <hr></blockquote>
Very well written. As is the rest of your post. There is a huge stereotypical perception of American envrionmental devastation. One thing I should point out though: This thread wasn't supposed to be USA v. Europe, like some made it in to. It was suposed to be directed at failing dictatorships without religous, economic or other freedoms. I wasn't talking about friggin' France, here folks.
Comments
[QB
[oops, almost at 1000 posts. better stop for a while.][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
No it's too late : you are doomed too
We're wrong.
Packing my bags.
The year to year shifts can be explained by things like sunspot activity, El Nino, vulcano activity etc. while the most logic explanation to the long term trend on the grph is human activity. Notice its not only the average over a couple of years that are growing but also the local lows and highs. The graph is clearly showing an upward and accelerating trend in the periode where we have accelerated our industrial activity.
<strong>
And really, what sacrifices would people have to make? Buying somewhat more fuel-efficient cars? Given the likely consequences of continued global warming, it hardly seems such a sacrifice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kyoto wouldn't make any difference even if we signed on. Whatever we did would be overwhelmed by those nations (India and China in particular) not bound by the protocols. And as for the sacrifices people would have to make, what do think would happen to the coal miners of West Virginia? The sacrifice you'd make might be fairly insignificant. For somebody else, it could easily be catastrophic. It will take more than just driving more fuel efficient cars. Compared to what people drove 25 years ago, we are already doing that. The problem is: the total miles driven has gone up dramatically eclipsing any progress we've made on average fuel efficiency.
The greenest policy we could pursue would be to fix our cities. (I'm serious.) If our cities were more attractive places to live, more people would choose to live there and mass transit would become a viable option in more places. We would also relieve the pressure on our green spaces and for the kicker you'd get brownfield redevelopment.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
[quote]And it seems clear to me that the non-biased sources show a consensus that global warming is occuring to a dangerous degree and could be prevented. <hr></blockquote>
I AM UNBIASED. That's the whole point. It is the environmental lobby that IS BIASED. I am willing to admit that global warming is quite possible. And I am the first to say we should be pursuing alternative fuels. But, I'm not just going to accept the environmental line either. I also think I was doing the only tthing a layperson can do with a graph like that, which is point out things that don't make sense. True, there is an upward trend. But there are also sharp declines. It seems to me that if greenhouse gases were truly affecting the atmosphere then it would be a smoother progression. It isn't a NASDAQ chart, afterall. (well, bad example I suppose!). Just a thought.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
This really is becoming tiresome. I could scour the web for links but, to what end? A waste of my time.
You don't believe the facts anyway. ( yawn )
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
As for China nad India, it is true that they would continue to pollute, especially China which is staring at employing the worlds largest coal expenditures without the pollution controls and efficiency that we have (because of those THUGS the environmentalists) now if the world found it to be in all of our interests to tackle this problem ( a "manhattan project for alternative energies" as one scientist put it) then we might very well come up with something . . . but the two problems of 1> people (hear Rush and gang and) don't believe that the environment IS really in any way their interest. and 2. no funding for research, because of #1, keep this from happening.
now,
SDW you are completely biased. THe way you spit out the word "liberal" every chance you get as a curse word shows it clearly. You exhibit the first quality of an ideologue; namely, that their prejudice is invisible as a prejudice that they have themselves.
The way that the graph is read by scientists is in terms of the over-all trend towards increase. The sawtooth quality is due to consistent variability, the over-all trend IS NOT CONSISTENT and hasn't been. As far as ice cores show it hasn't been for millenia with regards to CO2.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>Europe's right.
We're wrong.
Packing my bags.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who's we? The majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat. Kyoto wasn't squashed because of that, it was because most third world nations were allowed to bypass the regs that the US and Europe would have to follow-China, for example. The treaty should just be rewritten and reapplied to include all countries......................................... ......
[quote]SDW you are completely biased. THe way you spit out the word "liberal" every chance you get as a curse word shows it clearly. You exhibit the first quality of an ideologue; namely, that their prejudice is invisible as a prejudice that they have themselves.
The way that the graph is read by scientists is in terms of the over-all trend towards increase. The sawtooth quality is due to consistent variability, the over-all trend IS NOT CONSISTENT and hasn't been. As far as ice cores show it hasn't been for millenia with regards to CO2. <hr></blockquote>
1. To me, liberal IS a curse word. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I disagree firmly with the overall liberal agenda. Deal with it.
2. Your second paragraph seems to contradict itself. According to graph, is there an upward trend or not? What do you believe.
And finally, I can't help notice how long-winded your posts are. That last part ("You exhibit the first quality of an ideologue; namely, that their prejudice is invisible as a prejudice that they have themselves") is truly rich. Please, stoop to my level for a moment and enlighten me with the meaning of that statement. I can only assume your statement boils down to "SDW holds prejudices and doesn't event know it"...........which is quite false.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
...most "liberals" are not as agenda driven as you clearly think they are, (and as you are)...(some liberals are, and they too can be as idiotically closed minded as people here-abouts) However, most people who you call themselves 'liberals' but who don't wear it on their sleave, merely believe in a balance between infrastructural needs and absolute anarchy. Liberal became a swear word when Rush Limbaugh became the media/corporate sweatheart that he was for many years... and still is.... just not on television. People, listened to him and programed themselves like bits of software, swollowed everything he said... every spitefull lie and distortion of the truth, and, he and his funders shifted the debate so far to the right that every clone, or "ditto" head who has a bit of bile in their gut and is looking for people to blame anything on have created a fictitious monster: the "L" word.
And what is so hard to understand that what one (a scientist for example)is looking at when they see this graph is an over-all rise. . . . if you take the median average of the graph - -which also shows the ordinary variances - then you see a very clear steady rise . . . what the hell is so hard to see and understand here . . . are you completely blinded by your ideaology to the point that you can't even read a godamn graph
I am amazed by people on these boards who cannot respect the differences in political thoughts of others to such a point that they will hate them AND will distort what is right in front of their nose just to hold on to the PARTY LINE!!!
grow the f*ck up!!
Who is the one is is pissed off right now? I was asking you a simple question. Believe it or not, it wasn't entirely clear how you felt about that graph. Maybe I just didn't read your posts correctly, but it seemed in one sentence you talk of the overall trend being upward, and then you said:
[quote]the over-all trend IS NOT CONSISTENT and hasn't been. <hr></blockquote>
That's where you lost me. Perhaps just a miscommunication. I still don't trust that graph for a second, though. Here is why: It may be showing too short a time compared to the total history of the earth. It could be like looking at a stock's snapshot performance over, say, a week. One could easily make it look like the stock was going up when in reality it is going down. If the timeline is too small (like, say, a hundred years compared to ONE BILLION years) it might be deceptive. This is called data manipulation. But, you know that becuase you are smarter than I am, apparently.
[quote]People, listened to him and programed themselves like bits of software, swollowed everything he said... every spitefull lie and distortion of the truth, and, he and his funders shifted the debate so far to the right that every clone, or "ditto" head who has a bit of bile in their gut and is looking for people to blame anything on have created a fictitious monster: the "L" word. <hr></blockquote>
Well, that is just ridiculous. You blame Rush Limbaugh? Truly amusing. And I just don't buy the argument you keep repeating, that the political spectrum in the country has moved so far to the right that what was once considered liberal is now considered "ultra-liberal". I just don't buy that at all, and if anyone keeps sticking to a completely unsubstantiated argument/point it is you, with that particular one. In fact, I could make an argument that the country is getting closer to the LEFT. I would have about as much support as you do for your argument.
I don't really see why calling me a moron is required. I have certain beliefs that I feel strongly about. I feel my beliefs are suportable and I have solid reasons for having them. I can indeed think for myself, despite what you think. I am not convinced global warming is real, though I am certainly open to the possibility it exists. I am further open to the possibility that we, as humans, are causing it, but I'm not convinced about that either. We just dont have enough data. Though, I agree we should, as I said before, practice a "better safe than sorry" policy sooner rather than later, with regard to our emissions and fuel use.
Once again, the TRUE head of idealistic fascism has reared its ugly head, that being the LIBERAL MINDSET. If you don't agree with it, you are stupid. I see now.
God dammit we're not the world's envy. We're powerful for sure (we could kick the **** out of any nation)- but we have our problems much like every other country. STOP thinking we're all that and a bag of barbeque chips and START thinking we're a great country among many other great countries with good but different ideas.
*packin my bag for europe..........*
<strong>
Oh, OK. I forgot how dumb I am. Thank you very much. Please enlighten us further with your superb academic snobbery.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Being snobbish yourself to "academic snobbery" is itself- SNOBBISH. Have you not heard the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right?" Well, probably not considering that you probably are reciting that "Eye for an Eye" part of the Old Testament. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>Oh, and Pflam.....
I will hereby dedicate myself to becoming as intelligent as you. But, being the flag waving, Bush voting person I am, I will need to become immortal, so that I might have the time required to overcome my supreme stupidity.
Oh, and this just in:
This thread I have started is beginning to prove a point I only heard put into words the other day: Patriotism is not being taught in our liberal schools, and is now considered to be "taboo" by many. The difference between you and I is that I LIKE being called a flag waiver. I think it is a good thing. I think being patriotic is a GOOD thing. I appreciate the nation I live in. I appreciate my freedoms and a nation that gives me the ability to speak and generally act as I want. I realize that not all places on earth are like this. We have problems, and I know that. But, I truly DO believe we are the "best" nation, so to speak.
The problem in this country is the people that have stopped believing in the greatness of America.
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is an extent to which one may appreciate one's country. That extent, or the line that one crosses, lies where one's patriotism evolves into isolationism- or even worse- jingoism.
What most of us are expressing our serious concern for is your JINGOISM. You express your patriotism quite zealously- yet mainly through hostility towards other nations. Simply loving the good ol USA is one thing but lashing out at every country that doesn't like us shows us the distinction.
<strong>
The sad part is that there are many informed, intelligent Americans... hell, some of the greatest minds in the world are American... but so few compared to the ignorant knee-jerks. They are whispers in a stadium of cheering idiots.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A Poet! Great quote!
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>SDW2001's response to what Stimuli writes:
Why, thank you! I love being called stupid! What is truly funny is how people actually criticize people like me for thinking their nation is "the best". God forbid! I must be a facist! How dare I suggest that some of the totally failing nations on earth try democracy! How dare I suggest that some nations envy us for our money and power! What totally absurd suppositions! </strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what? **** you and your ****ing sarcasm. Who the **** do you think you are? Sarcasm really pisses the hell out of me. Like people MUST belittle each other. You just snobbishly criticized someone exercising their academic prowess (quite snobbishly yourself i might reiterate), and now you must snobbishly think you are better than Stimuli- the man-the poet? GOD. Speak sincerely, dumbass.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
Mate, we´re getting away from the point here.
In a nutshell. You post on here claiming that countries hate your country because they are jealous of your might, power and wealth.
In response to that I said it was nonsense. Later on I explained that it is nonsense because it´s simply not the reason. I told you what the reasons were.
Let me generalize for a bit...
Europeans, including myself, have digs at your country because we dislike overconfidence like you show in your original post.
Muslims, of course not all of them, hate your country for its support to Israel and for its continued presence in the Middle East. Others, however, are happy you are there. However, that is never talked about since these days any Arab must be a muslim and thus a terrorist. That´s the way GWB wants it.
I´m not going to deny that people take the wee out of the USA but in my opinion that is in no way related to a bunch of terrorists who think they have a good enough excuse to kill civilians. You say, and rightfully so, that you have a right to be pissed off by what happened on 9/11 but don´t the Arabs have a right to be pissed off by things that the US has done against them?
Now, like I said, there are things about America that I don´t understand or simply dislike but I´d still love to live there for a while in the near future. Not as long as GWB is in office though!
So in the end, what I wanted to say, was that you´re right to claim that countries hate the US. Just not for the reasons that you suggested.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great, poised post. Are you in any way affiliated with ETA? (Not like many of our US-ONLY posters here know what that group is...)
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>
Who's we? The majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat. Kyoto wasn't squashed because of that, it was because most third world nations were allowed to bypass the regs that the US and Europe would have to follow-China, for example. The treaty should just be rewritten and reapplied to include all countries......................................... ......</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't referring to Kyoto, I was referring to Europe generally speaking. I pretty much dig their world views. BBC all the way!
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>You're a moron, and you ARE biased, as is shown repeatedly by your childish venom . . </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Pfflam... we MUST get together sometime for laughs and drinks over a decidedly pro-democrat environment. We'll bring the girlfriends/wives for some more engaging discussion. Whew <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
<strong>
You know what? **** you and your ****ing sarcasm. Who the **** do you think you are? Sarcasm really pisses the hell out of me. Like people MUST belittle each other... GOD. Speak sincerely, dumbass.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, name-calling and swearing is so much better. At least you sincerely belittled him.
<strong>
Who's we? The majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat. Kyoto wasn't squashed because of that, it was because most third world nations were allowed to bypass the regs that the US and Europe would have to follow-China, for example. The treaty should just be rewritten and reapplied to include all countries......................................... ......</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. This point is not covered over here in Europe. The main US objection, at least one of them, is that developing countries like China for example are *excluded* from Kyoto. Now, a country like China, with over 1 billion people and the fastest manufacting growth of any major country is excluded. China's growth is something like 8% which is Huge and its only growing at the expense of other SE Asians, etc. The manufacturing base, where a large amount of pollution is created, is happening in countries like China as well as first world countries. So, when Europe critises US for Kyoto, they should be aware of China and aware of the economic disadvantage. Unfortuneatly, most people here in Europe just do the knee jerk anti-american kyoto bashing without ever bring this important objection. I follow news here avidly and this is never (or rarely) mentioned.
There is a lot of resentment/(secret envy or frustration of Europe beuracracy/being sidelined?) here of US actions and Kyoto is one of the talking points among a host of other issues. but, for Kyoto and US, this is widely misunderstood and US should do a better job explaining this reason.
My feeling is that if you do a deal like Kyoto, you need to *address* the major objections from major players. The US is a major player and sometimes its better to address or comprimise (or include China for example) to ratify the treaty. As it stands now Europe is frustrated without US and in process of ratifying Kyoto without US or China. They blame US for this. It would be better to get this worked out esp since China is now in the WTO. Why was China excluded from Kyoto? That is my question and why didn't Europe listen to US objections on this point?
The Americans are not stupid and are very aware of the environment and greenhouse emmissons. The idea that Americans do not read or care about international press or issues is false. For Europeans to just fall back to very sterotypical resentments and to underestimate Americans on a number of issues is not right. There is a definate fragmentation going on between Europe and US and this is, in essence, the general thread of this topic. If we are allies, we should act like allies and not like pissed off siblings. These are my observations.
[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
[quote]The Americans are not stupid and are very aware of the environment and greenhouse emmissons. The idea that Americans do not read or care about international press or issues is false. For Europeans to just fall back to very sterotypical resentments and to underestimate Americans on a number of issues is not right. There is a definate fragmentation going on between Europe and US and this is, in essence, the general thread of this topic. If we are allies, we should act like allies and not like pissed off siblings. These are my observations. <hr></blockquote>
Very well written. As is the rest of your post. There is a huge stereotypical perception of American envrionmental devastation. One thing I should point out though: This thread wasn't supposed to be USA v. Europe, like some made it in to. It was suposed to be directed at failing dictatorships without religous, economic or other freedoms. I wasn't talking about friggin' France, here folks.