Page 10 of 21 [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 21  Next

Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

28 Dec 2005, 3:45 pm

eamonn wrote:
The US is by far the biggest polluter, though China is catching up. It's just funny to see a supposedly democratic nation from the "civilised" world being so stubborn about pollution. When you need to start comparing your country to a dictatorship you are in trouble.


You misunderstand me, im not comparing a democractic nation to a dictatorship. Im simply stating fact. The U.S., despite oppinions or falonious media, is NOT the world's biggest polluter. And no, China is not catching up, they long passed us. And no, the U.S. is not being stubborn about it, they just entered a different anti-polluction aggreement with the Pacific powers, under different conditions. And, albeit maybe late in coming, measures have recently been considered for alternative fuels, im not sure if they passed both houses yet, but it was the administration that attempted to find alternate means, including pretty much every alternate resource.



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

28 Dec 2005, 4:10 pm

eamonn wrote:

They seem reluctant to sign up to other international standards that other democratic nations have as well like human rights (torturing captives outside US borders to save even US law being applied) and an international court, far deciding to be judge and jury themselves.



Well, looking at the U.S./U.N. history, its not that surprising, and don't forget either, that no other president has ever agreed to such things with the U.N. either. Going back to the U.N.'s predessor and founding, incidentally the idea was started by a former U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson for the Creation of an international body, well, when the pre-U.N.-U.N. ignored Wilson's pleas for less cruel punishment of the losing Axis powers, the U.S. never joined the very body it created under Wilson. Wilson backed out and became isolationist again, because good advice was unheeded and millions died in a succeeding war of revenge by the Axis powers.

Today the U.S. gives the U.N. more money than any other nation, though they may have halted that due to the recent coruption and unethical behavior of its officials. The U.N. has often seemed both contradictory and powerless to enforce its own decisions. Contradictory in that for instance, on the human rights panel are members of the worst human rights offenders on the planet. Plus its sanctions against nations like Iraq in the past, have proven both inneffective and ignored by member nations, who traded anyway. Anymore the U.N. serves more as a joke than a serious entity of world wide issues.

An oppinion based on observations, past instances, knowledge of history, and logically concluded in my results and assement.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

28 Dec 2005, 4:25 pm

The fact that you seem unwilling to admit to the numerous studies that all point to the US being the world nuber 1 polluter and your silence on US corruption (dont need to look far to see that most decisions including war are big business, corporate elte and Bush's cronies related, your great land is the worlds most corrupt democracy) along with your past posts tell me that your uninformed or baised. Try googling "worlds biggest polluter" and tell me how many studies and sites you pass before you come across one that backs your stance on pollution. Other nations need to adapt too but at least there is some will.



hermit
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 495
Location: Upstate NY

28 Dec 2005, 4:59 pm

ahhh... I try to stay out of politics as much as possible but cannot help it now that this thread has turned to pollution.

I live in the US. We are definately by far the #1 polluter, there is no question of that.

The fact is this country is not a democracy. It is a oilocracy and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Because of this, the average citizen really has no say about what happens and generally takes it in the shorts.

It's why we do not formally acknowledge the pollution- honestly, if Bush or any other leader TRULY believes we are not wreaking the environment I'd call him inhuman. He MUST know, but since capitalism rules, it can't be said.

Godawful way to take care of things if you ask me.

Cutting carbon emmissions is a great idea that every single country should do at once, and darn the economic costs. Call it a boon, it will create jobs somehow. It's too late in many respects but it should be a HIGH priority. IMNSHO, we're screwed already as far as climate changes goes.



SB2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,573
Location: Southern California

28 Dec 2005, 6:19 pm

Hermit,
i have yet to find fault with your reasoning.

although i believe in the healing ways of mother Nature.

If we were to adopt strategies of less polluting coupled with increased recycling. i think we might find that we have not screwed future generations as much as it seems.

Wait, i mean that my generation will not be so screwed and my kids should see things in a much clearer light.


_________________
i will not cease in my never ending pursuit of the truth...
@ http://duncsdrivel.biz/intensity/index.php


Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

29 Dec 2005, 3:49 pm

eamonn wrote:
The fact that you seem unwilling to admit to the numerous studies that all point to the US being the world nuber 1 polluter and your silence on US corruption (dont need to look far to see that most decisions including war are big business, corporate elte and Bush's cronies related, your great land is the worlds most corrupt democracy) along with your past posts tell me that your uninformed or baised. Try googling "worlds biggest polluter" and tell me how many studies and sites you pass before you come across one that backs your stance on pollution. Other nations need to adapt too but at least there is some will.


Try picking up a book. If you mean just any website, you have some serious reputation and reliability issues. There is no fact that i am unwilling to admit anything, so DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Sheesh, have you actually read my posts?? Any of them, past or present?? I never said i refered to all oppinions or studies done. Thats funny by the way, Bushes Cronies, as if hes a genius megalomaniac mad man. Well, whether or not thats true, certainly wont be proven or disproven by you. As you have apparently made up your mind about all things already and have no intention to listening to others either. Some peoples posts here seem intelligent, well thought out, and with good bits of info to offer up for support and have made me think. Yours however, are not among them, you call me biased, but i submit you show far more bias about the U.S. and Bush than i ever showed about anything. Granted, he may not be the Genius level intellect that James Carter was, the slick cheating, criminal Clinton was, but i have yet to see any 'so called' smoking gun that proves he's done anything wrong. There were as many, if not more issues dealing with Clinton, Bush, Sr, Reagan, and so on. We probably wont know for sure until years after he steps down. And whether you admit it or not, the U.S. is adapting, i know about U.S. companies developing fuel cells for homes and cars, the U.S. had a solar car race a few years ago with a U.S. designed team from MIT winning on a cross country race. There are still many companies that do recycle, its actually good business, not all things NEED the goverment to force them to do the right thing. I know, and this was well before Bush was elected, that locally, they started CHARGING for recycling runs, so many people dropped it. It dont make sense to me, sense they profit from Recycling and used to pay you for it.

And frankly, as far as jobs go, i dont think any president has really done that great at it, its still nearly impossible now, as it always has been to find decent jobs where i am. Yes, i may have been surprised too, but the Chinese have more polluting sources then the U.S., other nations, use older tech still which burns less clean fuel.
If the U.S. auto industry, for some reason, decide to stop their alternative fuel development, then the Japanese, at least, will take away their market share, with their better and newer alternative fuel vehicles. I dont think evil or ineffecient poltics are the cause of any one party either, its the defunct system. I suspect Britain may not be much better off, if you have lifetime career politicians, they will have a tendency to want to keep their jobs, its not much better or different then what it was meant to replace, Monarchies.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

29 Dec 2005, 4:37 pm

Try keeping up with the obvious. Denying it makes you look unread or baised.

It is a well known fact (nearly all major studies and publications point this out even right-wing pro-US rags here in Blighty) that the US is the biggest polluter and you have denied this, then you question me as having reliability issues?

I am anti-monarchist and realise that Britain is a bit far behind in this isue though it is more ceremonial than anything else so you wont catch me out on the issue of monarchy.I can actually be critical of any country including the one i was brought up in. Religious bigotry is worse here than the US for instance.

Ruling politicians the world over can be pretty woeful and self-serving, i just happen to think that the US (and particularly the republicans) has the worst record right now due to my political beliefs as a pro-green socialist humanitarian.



SB2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,573
Location: Southern California

29 Dec 2005, 5:57 pm

I think what he meant was pick up just one way of thinking type books.

You know the type that will support only the views you currently have.

Far beit for someone to pick up a book on a subject that doesn't fit neatly into their philosophy.


The problem with the republicand (one of many) is that they have the house, senate and presidency, majority. Its like a blank check. How could this have happened?

Oh yeah, FEAR>
all the people peeing themselves in fear of the bogeyman; gonna get them.

Grow up mid americans. except for the ones who after searching their hearts did not vote from fear or religion.

Because religion is an unacceptable excuse as well. We are supposed to have a seperation of church and state. And the issue of abortion is a mute one. You should never vote for a leader who has a stance.

I disagree with it in my own situation, but until science can prove that an acorn is an oaktree, i have no rights imposing my will over someone elses choice.

]Abortion is here to stay. They will never change that fact, NEVER.


_________________
i will not cease in my never ending pursuit of the truth...
@ http://duncsdrivel.biz/intensity/index.php


Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,540
Location: Dave's Toilet

29 Dec 2005, 5:58 pm

Comkeen wrote:
psych wrote:
Laz wrote:
I have to say it is abit lame that you banned RobertN. I felt sorry for the horse carrying that bandwagon that everyone jumped on you could see it happening from a mile off.


Now the dust has settled, im starting to think that too. What he said really isnt that big a deal, put in the context of being constantly wound up simply because hes a nice bloke who happens to give a sh** about humanity (Well, most of it! )

"First they came for RobertN. But i did not speak out, because i am not RobertN"


What RobertN said is the equivilent of me saying that the IRA bombings were justified for the years of humiliation the British placed on the Irish. RobertN is not a "nice bloke" and just reading his post history proves that. RobertN is obsessed with anti-americanism and probably cant realize that what he is saying is way out of line. He's even anti-american to the point where he flames those who comes in defense of him. Just because Bin Ladin blew up the trade centers doesnt mean all arabs are evil. Just because a few neocons want to control the middle east doesnt mean all Americans are like that.


Well you know the ironic thing is a board member on this forum said exactly that first statement on another forum that I was on. Im not gonna kick up a fuss about that because, guess what, im a tolerant individual. RobertN isn't exactly a hardline muslim fundamentalist, he's a middle class cambridgeshire lad. Bare in mind we are also all aspies here and we can be inadvertantly offensive so i would expect you to be alittle more tolerant. He hardly spammed this board, he didn't groom any underage girls on here...

You seem to have created a person in your image called RobertN welcome to the internet, RobertN on the uk site aspietalk/village is a polite individual and relatively stable and sane. his politics are immature there are plenty of teenagers and young adults out there who are all oh man f*** bush etc etc but don't have a clue why they say it, same with people who rant about margret thatcher and the conservatives but don't really understand why there is so much animosity against that previous government.

This is all deja vu all over again on another board



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

29 Dec 2005, 6:25 pm

Comkeen wrote:
What RobertN said is the equivilent of me saying that the IRA bombings were justified for the years of humiliation the British placed on the Irish.


While not saying it was justified the IRA bombing campaign was understandable given the deaths and persecution received by native Irishmen in their own land at the hands of the invadors. The provisional IRA always gave warnings with their bombs that were placed within area near civillians and so only a handful of civillians were ever killed in 30 years of war.

They actually killed much less civillians than the British Army, their agencies and state backed paramilitaries so to compare the provisional IRA and groups who deliberately targets civillians wouldnt be a fair comparison.



Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,540
Location: Dave's Toilet

29 Dec 2005, 6:31 pm

Nice, but off topic



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

29 Dec 2005, 6:59 pm

I was pointing out that the IRA bombing campaign is not the equivalent of 9/11 as was being alleged. Totally different set of circumstances.

I do think however RobertN said what he said under provocation and so was riled up. I dont think we should have a political forum if we are going to ban someone for having different political beliefs from the majority here no matter how unpalatable some of us find any particular members political beliefs.



Sorce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 567

29 Dec 2005, 7:24 pm

eamonn wrote:
I was pointing out that the IRA bombing campaign is not the equivalent of 9/11 as was being alleged. Totally different set of circumstances.

I do think however RobertN said what he said under provocation and so was riled up. I dont think we should have a political forum if we are going to ban someone for having different political beliefs from the majority here no matter how unpalatable some of us find any particular members political beliefs.


There's a difference between differing political beliefs and continuously insulting people. Oh he insults Americans as a whole instead of individually so that makes it okay. :roll: Debates about 'your country did this' and 'your country did that' are pointless, and lead nowhere. When I'm 'riled up' I usually don't start insulting nations as a whole, and RobertN has proved that he's just as much of a bigot in other threads so he must get 'riled up' alot.

I usually enjoy forums but this is one of the few sites that I've been on where it's okay to keep reeming on Americans. I'm so sorry that we're normal human beings in America. I'm so sorry that we didn't travel overseas during the 2004 elections to find out who you wanted us to vote for. How dare we think that as US citizens we coulde decide for ourselves who to vote for. My mistake. We have elections coming up in 2006 and 2008. Would you guys like to let me know who to vote for next time. I mean if you're all the way overseas and you know much better than I, who lives in the United States who to vote for, please enlighten me with your wisdom. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am not insulting other nations. I have common sense enough to distinguish the actions of a few from a whole country.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

29 Dec 2005, 8:36 pm

It isnt me that comes across as having their "panties in a bunch". Im not demanding you vote anyone, that's why i agree with democracy but dont be surprised if the rest of the world dislikes the US for it. (Well the majority of voters in the red states anyway) Oh no the poor Americans are the ones discriminated against on a site where they are in the majority, make up most of the moderation team and has an American owner. Very likely.

This is the only site i frequent that has actually banned a member for being "anti-American". I only usually visit three other sites and two of them have a majority of Americans and most of them republicans awho see themselves as conservative but they havent even banned the members for something as trivial as this, realising instead that would make them hypocrites because like most sites right now there is lots of anti-Arab statements on them and Arabs they happen to be a race, not just a nation.

You dont win an argument or friends by doing things like this, you win it by being tolerant and pointing out the fallacies in statements like the ones RobertN said. I have top point out though that the majority of his statements werent even anti-american, just anti-american government.

I realise that RobertN's comments were unfortunate though he is but one person and there is generalisations here about many people by many people.

You havent been here long but i can assure you there has been a lot worse discriminatory comments about many different creeds colours countries etc by people and i can think of one person in particular (who happens to be American and smug about Robert's banning) who has said discriminatory stuff that is far more disgusting than anything that RobertN could come near to and on a more regular basis and hasnt been banned.

The point is i have always been against any banning of anyone here in the past because im not a big girl's blouse who cry's at the first sight of criticism of my nation or people and realise that there will always be lots of people that generalise unfortunately and we have a lot more people to ban than RobertN if we are so worried about ALL generalisations.



Epimonandas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Ohio

30 Dec 2005, 12:06 am

How is this for a source, eamon? its from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4086809.stm

It shows China, India, Argentina, Chile, Ukraine, Russia, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, being far worse polluters than the US. This was one of the few legit sites, i have found that shows any environmental data. So, its not just me, or US sources saying that. The U.S. did not sign Kyoto, cause, one: Kyoto does not address major offenders, China and India, nor does it even guarantee compliance, its goals are not feasible with respect to keeping people employed. The U.S. did sign an environmental pact however, with Asian Powers, including Austrailia (another nation that did not sign Kyoto), China, and Japan, which was signed in Singapore.


And some of the pollution might not even be from the U.S. re: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... ion-_x.htm



Last edited by Epimonandas on 30 Dec 2005, 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

30 Dec 2005, 12:19 am

Well you had a good look and overlooked lots of sites and studies but can you quote were exactly the article says that these countries are bigger polluters than the US as opposed to showing you the cost of particle emmisions as % of national income. We already know that the US is richer than the other big polluters this just means they have less excuse.

The kyoto agreement doesnt deal with China or the US because both countries arent serious about tackling climate change by reducing pollution and choose instead to keep high pollution levels by entering into their own little deal that tackles little.