Everyone ready for Bush/Kerry debate #2?

Soz--

Due to recent enlightenment of how one may percieve multiple 'agumentative' responses, I wanted to say I am not arguing with YOU, but addressing your points. Political reparte... No negatives intended toward you, or anyone else--

0 Replies

But who is telling Bush to TAKE the protocol and fix it to his preferences? Little thing called diplomacy, ya know... work WITH them, see how to fix things together. I just did a search on Kerry and Kyoto, finding out what he wants to fix/ how to fix it. One example of what I've found so far is:

Quote:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1001.html

But debate-wise, it really clearly got across the importance of diplomacy and the effects of inadequate diplomacy.

(And sure about political repartee, no prob.)

0 Replies

(And Kerry didn't say "listen to your guts"):

Quote:

I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts. Gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html

0 Replies

Did anyone notice this? Kerry said this about terrorists:

"I agree with the president that we have to go after them and get them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively, because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence."

When he paused there, I looked at my friend and we both said "Did he just call Bush an idiot?"

Then he paused and added:

"You've got to have the best intelligence in the world."

I think he might have been saying, in a very clever way, that Bush is not too bright. Am I wrong?

0 Replies

That'd be cool. :-)

But I think he was talking about intelligence not like smart but like CIA/ FBI/ various spooks gathering intelligence. Info. I think the pause and the implication part is right, but it was about the baaaad intelligence Bush has had, and Bush's complicity there (such as the way Bush has ignored what he didn't want to hear.)

0 Replies

Oh yeah, I totally get that he was talking about the gathering of intelligence, soz. That pause though...it just made me think that he was getting a little shot in there, under the radar.

Maybe he didn't mean to do that at all, but I liked it. Smile

0 Replies

Kicky--

Ostensibly, he meant intel agencies--which is laughable, as Kerry has voted to cut their funding...

-------------

Why Bush Was Right On Kyoto.

On March 28, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not implement the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. 1 Given the current energy crisis as well as "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide," the President said he could not sign an agreement that would "harm our economy and hurt our workers." 2 He also objected to the fact that the Protocol--which has been ratified by only one of the countries necessary before it could go into effect--still "exempts 80 percent of the world...from compliance." 3 President Bush supports a policy approach to the issue of global climate change that is based on sound science, and he has offered to work with America's allies and through international processes to "develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches" that would address the factors involved more effectively. 4

---------
He did avail himself to working with allies on something that made sense. Any honest critic of Bush re Kyoto should read this article. Assess what Clinton did re Kyoto. Gave lip service, but made it illegal to follow his lead. Talked out of both sides of his mouth. Bush spoke clearly and honestly about the problems with Kyoto. NO ONE ELSE HAS PUT IT INTO EFFECT. This was a global club to use on the US. Look at what it would have done to us.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Did anyone notice this? Kerry said this about terrorists:

"I agree with the president that we have to go after them and get them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively, because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence."

When he paused there, I looked at my friend and we both said "Did he just call Bush an idiot?"

Then he paused and added:

"You've got to have the best intelligence in the world."

I think he might have been saying, in a very clever way, that Bush is not too bright. Am I wrong?

It's certainly possible.

He's that glib.

While this sort of quip might tickle Bush-Haters, is it indicative of the qualties desirable in a president? No more, I would argue, than any of the points Bush scored with less subtle jibes.

0 Replies

Yes, Finn, I will agree that subtly is not one of Bush's strong suits. :wink:

0 Replies

From the Heritage Foundation? OK.

I have to go, will do some more digging later. Maybe a new thread on Kyoto?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

But who is telling Bush to TAKE the protocol and fix it to his preferences? Little thing called diplomacy, ya know... work WITH them, see how to fix things together. I just did a search on Kerry and Kyoto, finding out what he wants to fix/ how to fix it. One example of what I've found so far is:

The Kyoto treaty was the result of several years of negotiation and the talks had reached the point of deadlock. Proponents of the treaty added provisions exempting all the states of the former Soviet Union from any required action and most of the third world as well to "buy" votes for agreement. Moreover the reference point for emissions reduction was set so that the Western European signatories would have relatively little further acton to take.

Only the United States would be required to make significant changes, and, this of course was in keeping with the theology of zealots like Al Gore. Although the agreement had no chance whatever of passing (the Senate passed a resolution 96 to zero advising the President it would reject the treaty), Clinton signed it anyway to colect the political points. However,in typical style, Clinton sat on it for almost a year without either doing anything to make it better through the diplomacy Soz now advocates or to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Kerry was in the Senate throughout this period - he did nothing then to either make the treaty better or advocate its ratification (He was on the Foreign Relations Committee and had direct oversight responsibilities.)

Diplomacy had been exhausted when Bush took over. He merely put an end to the illusion Clinton had created, and which Senator Kerry helped to sustain. A similar story can be told about the ICC treaty.

0 Replies

Regarding the Kyoto treaty

georgeob1 wrote:

Diplomacy had been exhausted when Bush took over. He merely put an end to the illusion Clinton had created, and which Senator Kerry helped to sustain. A similar story can be told about the ICC treaty.

Hm, and I thought that Clinton was ensuring that the treaty was science-based, inclusive, and verifiable before submitting it for ratification. Rushing it through, if it is still not set up in a realistic and workable format is not useful. Diplomacy needs to be clear, clear-headed, not full of romantic half thought out notions. Clinton was simply sitting on it until the scientists could fine-tune it into a more useful~usable treaty. Bush was wrong to just chuck the whole thing the way he did.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Regarding the Kyoto treaty

Hm, and I thought that Clinton was ensuring that the treaty was science-based, inclusive, and verifiable before submitting it for ratification. Rushing it through, if it is still not set up in a realistic and workable format is not useful. Diplomacy needs to be clear, clear-headed, not full of romantic half thought out notions. Clinton was simply sitting on it until the scientists could fine-tune it into a more useful~usable treaty. Bush was wrong to just chuck the whole thing the way he did.

Where did you get that idea? Can you point to any modification whatever to the treaty that occured from the moment Clinton signed the treaty (thus ending any U.S. ability to negotiate changes) until he left office? The fact is nothing changed. Since the treaty negotiations were completed several years ago, science has raised more questions about the theory behind it than support for it. Moreover analysis has fairly clearly shown that the costs of compliance would far exceed even the most optimistic forecasts of its benefit.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Clinton was simply sitting on it until the scientists could fine-tune it into a more useful~usable treaty. Bush was wrong to just chuck the whole thing the way he did.

The "scientists" had nothing to do with the delay... that's bunk. The U.S. congress was not about to sign anything that meant our economy takes a big hit, some of the world takes a little hit and half the world takes no hit at all. That wasn't going to happen regardless of what the scientists said.

That being said; we are wrong. The reason we take the biggest hit is two pronged. First, we are the world's biggest offenders... and we all know it. Second, the reason the other industrial Nations won't be hit as hard is because they've already taken greater steps in the right direction.

This is work that needs to be done, and to me, it makes little difference whether we all do so at the same time or not. Frankly, I'd prefer it if we lead the way and then pressured others to follow. That's what leaders are supposed to do. Idea

0 Replies

I think many of us knew why the US refused the Kyoto Protocols; it required the US to sacrfice the most which in effect would hamper our economy while developing nations had little or no requirements at a time when global competitition is growing. It would make us more non-competititive, so I agree with refusing to sign the Kyoto Accords.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That being said; we are wrong. The reason we take the biggest hit is two pronged. First, we are the world's biggest offenders... and we all know it. Second, the reason the other industrial Nations won't be hit as hard is because they've already taken greater steps in the right direction.

Depends on how you define 'offender'. We are the world's largest consumer of energy. However we also have the worlds highest economic output per unit of energy consumed. (BTW the worlds greatest consumers of energy per capita are our very liberal Canadian neighbors to the north.)

The "greater steps in the right direction" the other industrial countries of europe have taken are (1) much higher taxes on gasoline, and (2) much greater use of nuclear power (50% of electrical production vs our 20%). (Moreover Europeans are awash in lots of cheap natural gas from Russoa and Lybia. Our wacko environmentalists resist LNG importation to alleviate our relative shortage of this fuel.) I doubt that you would advocate we take these steps.

0 Replies

Sure, leading the way and pressuring others to follow -- pressuring and diplomacy also go hand in hand. If the pressure is so diplomatic that they don't know they're being pressured, all the better. :-)

All different from walking away.

Anyway, anyone want to start a new thread on Kyoto? I have a feeling it's one of those things that it will be opinion call one way/ opinion call the other way unless we go way in-depth, and this doesn't seem the place to go way in depth.

My position based on what I know of it is that Bush handled Kyoto badly, that Bush has been absolutely awful on the environment, and that something needs to be done.

Heck, I'll go start a new thread on that now. Just a sec...

0 Replies

Here we go:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35732

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That being said; we are wrong. The reason we take the biggest hit is two pronged. First, we are the world's biggest offenders... and we all know it. Second, the reason the other industrial Nations won't be hit as hard is because they've already taken greater steps in the right direction.

Depends on how you define 'offender'. We are the world's largest consumer of energy. However we also have the worlds highest economic output per unit of energy consumed. (BTW the worlds greatest consumers of energy per capita are our very liberal Canadian neighbors to the north.)

The "greater steps in the right direction" the other industrial countries of europe have taken are (1) much higher taxes on gasoline, and (2) much greater use of nuclear power (50% of electrical production vs our 20%). (Moreover Europeans are awash in lots of cheap natural gas from Russoa and Lybia. Our wacko environmentalists resist LNG importation to alleviate our relative shortage of this fuel.) I doubt that you would advocate we take these steps.

Your doubt is misplaced. I've advocated a $5 per gallon tax on gasoline since Ross Perot first proposed it as a solution to our gargantuan dept. We don't have a lack of technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels... we have a strong lobby who opposes the reduction. Some of our power plants are beyond disgusting, and there is NO EXCUSE for this.

Whether some scientists are over the top on their doomsday predictions or not is largely immaterial. Pollution, to a large degree, is the byproduct of apathy. I am 100% behind taxing fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate until production of "Green Energy" is the cheaper, more cost effective solution.

Our current position is simply, flat out, irresponsible.

0 Replies

Oops, wrong thread I guess. I'll repost in your new one.

0 Replies

Everyone ready for Bush/Kerry debate #2?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know