Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Straight Truth About the Bush Economy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 78511" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Tie,</p><p>This is JMO but here goes. You are correct in that if you look at the last several years there has been a marked improvement in the area of greenhouse gas output as it relates to the US. Is it enough? That's what the debate centers around. I also think it very dishonest for those who would sit there and trash Bush over Kyoto when Clinton and Gore had their problems with it as well. Clinton did sign on as a signator before the closing in 98' but that was non-binding. In his last 2 years in office he never attempted to bring it before the Senate for a vote. Kyoto came about in the 1990's several years before Bush so the problem was already there several years before the guy even announced his intentions to seek the White House. To now turn around and lay all the blame for global warming at Bush's feet if bullschitt. TOTAL, COMPLETE BULLSCHITT! Hey I consider Bush a total traitor to true conservative small gov't principles that he claimed to be about and never voted for the guy in the first place but they are dead wrong in laying all this blame on his watch. Blame him for failure to take action if you see it that way and that is completely fair but to try and spin the story to seem as though global warming only came into play after Bush was elected is nothing but crap IMO.</p><p> </p><p>Global warming the way I see this is just like the bug I had a couple of weeks ago. It started out not to bad but about a week later it got to the point a doctor visit was needed and an antibiotic. Now that first night after the doctor visit and the medication introduced the symptoms seemed to get worse and I actually felt worse but the next day when it began to approach the 24 hour mark since I started taking the antibiotic, I began to feel a ton better and within about 30 hours almost felt like I was not sick at all. Now I still had to complete the medication regime but the point was results take time, they are not immediate. Are the recent positive turn in results all Bush? IMO, no. I believe it fair to say that positive turn likely began before hand, either during the Clinton years or who knows, it could have even begun during Bush 1 years. GW doesn't get the blame but he doesn't take all the creidt either IMO.</p><p> </p><p>Air quality in some sense may be in the same way as a human sickness and medication and it may take some years to see any dramatic results. This may have begun to happen in the last number of years and could begin to accelerate but there is a problem on the horizon. China and India and their developing populations and economies which interesting enough both countries are excluded from the greenhouse gas production limits of Kyoto. The way I've read Kyoto <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html" target="_blank">http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html</a> it appears to me that what has been attempted is that if the powers that be can hold all the signatory nations to 1990's output limits this will in effect give some opening for what is believed will be China and India's output and thus the actual total levels globally would be the same as if China and India never developed at all and had the rest of us maintain our earlier course. In other words, everyone gave up some table space and that 2nd helping so China and India could come to supper and everyone still fit on the kitchen table and everyone get a bite to eat without momma having to fire up the stove again. Simplistic but IMO fits the picture.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 78511, member: 2189"] Tie, This is JMO but here goes. You are correct in that if you look at the last several years there has been a marked improvement in the area of greenhouse gas output as it relates to the US. Is it enough? That's what the debate centers around. I also think it very dishonest for those who would sit there and trash Bush over Kyoto when Clinton and Gore had their problems with it as well. Clinton did sign on as a signator before the closing in 98' but that was non-binding. In his last 2 years in office he never attempted to bring it before the Senate for a vote. Kyoto came about in the 1990's several years before Bush so the problem was already there several years before the guy even announced his intentions to seek the White House. To now turn around and lay all the blame for global warming at Bush's feet if bullschitt. TOTAL, COMPLETE BULLSCHITT! Hey I consider Bush a total traitor to true conservative small gov't principles that he claimed to be about and never voted for the guy in the first place but they are dead wrong in laying all this blame on his watch. Blame him for failure to take action if you see it that way and that is completely fair but to try and spin the story to seem as though global warming only came into play after Bush was elected is nothing but crap IMO. Global warming the way I see this is just like the bug I had a couple of weeks ago. It started out not to bad but about a week later it got to the point a doctor visit was needed and an antibiotic. Now that first night after the doctor visit and the medication introduced the symptoms seemed to get worse and I actually felt worse but the next day when it began to approach the 24 hour mark since I started taking the antibiotic, I began to feel a ton better and within about 30 hours almost felt like I was not sick at all. Now I still had to complete the medication regime but the point was results take time, they are not immediate. Are the recent positive turn in results all Bush? IMO, no. I believe it fair to say that positive turn likely began before hand, either during the Clinton years or who knows, it could have even begun during Bush 1 years. GW doesn't get the blame but he doesn't take all the creidt either IMO. Air quality in some sense may be in the same way as a human sickness and medication and it may take some years to see any dramatic results. This may have begun to happen in the last number of years and could begin to accelerate but there is a problem on the horizon. China and India and their developing populations and economies which interesting enough both countries are excluded from the greenhouse gas production limits of Kyoto. The way I've read Kyoto [URL="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html"]http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html[/URL] it appears to me that what has been attempted is that if the powers that be can hold all the signatory nations to 1990's output limits this will in effect give some opening for what is believed will be China and India's output and thus the actual total levels globally would be the same as if China and India never developed at all and had the rest of us maintain our earlier course. In other words, everyone gave up some table space and that 2nd helping so China and India could come to supper and everyone still fit on the kitchen table and everyone get a bite to eat without momma having to fire up the stove again. Simplistic but IMO fits the picture. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Straight Truth About the Bush Economy
Top