How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Better watch out or the global warming w   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Better watch out or the global warming will get yah!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 12-19-2009 06:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your list of alternatives were your conclusion, Grinch.

It appears your course of action would be to do something, even if you need it or not. If it didn't carry a large cost, that would be a reasonable course of action.

I really don't consider you qualified to speak for Ayn Rand.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 12-19-2009 07:16 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Under the pretext of responding to a bombing on the USS Maine anchored in Havana, Cuba, the U.S. went to war with Cuba's colonial overlord, Spain, in 1899. After routing Europe's weakest colonial power, the U.S. made off with all of Spain's colonial possessions in Latin America and Asia, seizing control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

The Spanish-American War marked the entrance of the U.S. into the worldwide scramble for colonies among the advanced powers. Novelist Mark Twain made no bones about what this meant: How our hearts burned with indignation against the atrocious Spaniards. . .But when the smoke was over, the dead buried and the cost of the war came back to the people in an increase in the price of commodities and rent--that is, when we sobered up from our patriotic spree--it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the Spanish-American war was the price of sugar. . . . that the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the interests of American capitalists.
-------------
Whenever the colonial subjects of the U.S. fought back, the U.S. drowned them in blood. As Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God--and the phrase is the government's, not mine--we are a World Power. In the 1900-1903 war to conquer the Philippines, the U.S. killed more than 1 million people. In the midst of that war, U.S. Army General Shefter said: "It may be necessary to kill half of the Filipinos in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous state affords."
-------------

A century later, the U.S. stands alone as the world's superpower. It is the only country with the ability to go to war anywhere in the world. The U.S. attained its position of dominance through competition with other powerful nations. The U.S. and the world's other major powers--Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany--fought two world wars, threatened each other with nuclear annihilation and divided and redivided the world between them. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/25951.html



quote:

I have nothing against Imperialism



Why the hell not Juju?  In fact I think you do -- by this statement:

quote:

As a young girl I learned the poor countries would be dependant on the paternal countries in Europe and the US, because of foreign policies to conquer and these were disguised as something heroic to the general public.



Supporting evidence for Juju's thesis from the CFR:

quote:

The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire

Lawrence Summers, the dominant professor-politician of the Clinton years, used to say that the United States is history's only nonimperialist superpower. But is this claim anything to boast about today? The war on terrorism has focused attention on the chaotic states that provide profit and sanctuary to nihilist outlaws, from Sudan and Afghanistan to Sierra Leone and Somalia. When such power vacuums threatened great powers in the past, they had a ready solution: imperialism. But since World War II, that option has been ruled out. After more than two millennia of empire, orderly societies now refuse to impose their own institutions on disorderly ones.

This anti-imperialist restraint is becoming harder to sustain, however, as the disorder in poor countries grows more threatening. Civil wars have grown nastier and longer. In a study of 52 conflicts since 1960, a recent World Bank study found that wars started after 1980 lasted three times longer than those beginning in the preceding two decades. Because wars last longer, the number of countries embroiled in them is growing. And the trend toward violent disorder may prove self-sustaining, for war breeds the conditions that make fresh conflict likely. Once a nation descends into violence, its people focus on immediate survival rather than on the longer term. Saving, investment, and wealth creation taper off; government officials seek spoils for their cronies rather than designing policies that might build long-term prosperity. A cycle of poverty, instability, and violence emerges.

There is another reason why state failures may multiply. Violence and social disorder are linked to rapid population growth, and this demographic pressure shows no sign of abating. In the next

20 years, the world's population is projected to grow from around six billion to eight billion, with nearly all of the increase concentrated in poor countries. Some of the sharpest demographic stresses will be concentrated in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories -- all Islamic societies with powerful currents of anti-Western extremism. Only sub-Saharan Africa faces a demographic challenge even sharper than that of the Muslim world. There, an excruciating combination of high birth rates and widespread aids infection threatens social disintegration and governmental collapse -- which in turn offer opportunities for terrorists to find sanctuary.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57800/se  bastian-mallaby/the-reluctant-imperialist-terrorism-failed-states-and-the-case-f



quote:

It reminds me of the "World Bank" a group of European countries with the goal of "helping the less fortunate countries."



Ok..partly right -- partly wrong;

quote:

Super Imperialism - New Edition: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance

Hudson is a Wall Street economist who used to work at the Chase Manhattan Bank. In Part One, he describes the rise of the American empire. Part Two describes its institutions: the US-controlled World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, which all benefit the USA. The US has the sole veto power in all three. Part Three describes what Herman Kahn called `the greatest rip-off ever achieved', the way the US's ruling class levies us all to pay for its aggressive wars, just as the Roman Empire levied tribute to pay for its constant wars. Similarly Britain, Germany and Japan all pay for the US's military bases in their countries.

In 1945, as in 1918, Britain led Europe's capitulation to the USA's debt demands. The British ruling class chose dependency on the US ruling class. The USA insisted that Britain ended the sterling bloc, accepted IMF controls, did not impose exchange controls, and did not devalue. As Hudson writes, "The Anglo-American Loan Agreement spelled the end of Britain as a Great Power."

The 1945-51 Labour government's huge spending on unnecessary imperial, counter-revolutionary wars robbed our industry of investment. This excessive military spending meant that we had constantly to borrow from the IMF, increasing our dependence on the USA. Now Britain is the USA's Trojan horse in Europe, against Britain's interests.
http://www.amazon.com/Super-Imperialism-Origin-Fundamentals-Dominanc/dp/0745319890



quote:

Perkins began writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man in the 1980s. In the book, he states that, "Threats or bribes always convinced me to stop".

"Covertly recruited by the United States National Security Agency and on the payroll of an international consulting firm, he traveled the world—to Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other strategically important countries...Perkins reveals the hidden mechanics of imperial control behind some of the most dramatic events in recent history, such as the fall of the Shah of Iran, the death of Panamanian president Omar Torrijos, and the U.S. invasions of Panama and Iraq."[2]

According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with huge debts they could not hope to pay, these countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:

    Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly-paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

The epilogue to the 2006 edition provides a rebuttal to the current move by the G8 nations to forgive Third World debt. Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to sell their health, education, electric, water and other public services to corporations. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

In the book, Perkins repeatedly denies the existence of a "conspiracy." Instead, Perkins carefully discusses the role of corporatocracy.
“ "I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation’s largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time‘s magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed—well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn’t have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.[3] - Nov 4 '04 interview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man



Now, here's the thing Juju.  Oil, sugar,and other commodities exist -- just like anthropomorphic global warming exists -- that some will exploit them for their own gain (or deny them) does not negate the fact of their existence.    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 12-19-2009 10:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So how did the agreement in Copenhagen work out?

The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations, but they do not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_bi_ge/us_climate_obama

That's what it's all about, folks....
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


28 posted 12-19-2009 11:11 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The more important realization is the direction coming out of these issues, regardless of the confusion in the issues themselves.   No matter how confused the starting places and questions, the direction of making our human-centers more nature friendly is a good direction and an answer that will benefit us all.  

The possible result is that we might reduce Global Warming by cleaning up our act more and more and the whole world will benefit, but the more probable one may be that by cleaning up our act the whole world will benefit (even though we don't succeed in reducing Global Warming).  Both are worth it.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 12-19-2009 11:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Now I've heard it all..thanks for expanding my universe, Ess
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


30 posted 12-20-2009 12:37 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Balladeer

What was the point of that comment?  Sarcasm?  To annoy me?  Hopefully not.  But that is all I was able to get from it.
 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


31 posted 12-20-2009 02:13 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    I was similarly puzzled, Essorant.  Disagreement can be respectful.  Not that I don't need to work on that myself.

     Why is Mike the judge of who is qualified to speak for Ayn Rand?

     It sounds like Who is qualified to speak for Freud, or for God?  Are you particularly good with the Aristotelian Logic that Ayn Rand prides herself on using well?  She bases a lot of her thinking on that on that, you know; and I suspect Grinch might give you a run for your money.  It'd be tough to knock him off his pins in terms of organization of detail and understanding formal logic and logical fallacies.  That whole chapter A is A is all about that sort of thing, if I remember correctly, and your strength is on the gut understanding of what she's trying to talk about.  If she didn't want people to know about those details, she'd have left them out.  I'm sure there were editors who were begging her to do just that.

     Remember Ronald Reagan when he had to give that speech about Iran Contra and how he'd lied to everybody.  What he said, and this makes sense to me, was that he knew he lied but that in his heart it seemed like the truth to him, or something along those lines.  You'd be able to quote it better than I could.  It made perfect sense because the man always thought he was telling the truth, no matter how large a whopper he was telling, and the truth really did matter to him; and I mean mattered to him a lot.  It didn't destroy him to find out that he was in the middle of a contradiction, if you'll pardon the unconscious pun that simply walked on through there.  His Contra- Diction got him in trouble, but at the same time people understood it because he was so clear about what he meant and who he was, even those of us who disagreed with him knew that.

     Grinch can speak for Ayn Rand if he wants, and his understanding and authority for doing so come from a different place than your does, but it's still quite real and shouldn't be dismissed.  And Essorant and I, for that matter, aren't trying to pull one over on you or the country or the world by disagreeing with you about climate change.  We really do see it the way we see it, and it makes very good sense to us.  We're not dishonest or irrational or immoral folks trying to stick you with a bill you should have to pay.  We really do disagree about that, like we do about a lot of things, but it's not because we're trying to frustrate you.

     We really do believe it's a life and death situation.  I know that I do at least; I shouldn't speak for Essorant.

     That's all for now.  

Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 12-20-2009 07:12 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you have a real habit of jumping in to either criticize me or defend others for comments I make to them. I must assume you feel that grinch cannot speak for himself and needs your defense. If you apply yourself more to the comments I make to you directly, you comments will make more sense and not appear that you are looking for anything I say to anyone else as an excuse for jumping in to make demeaning comments.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 12-20-2009 07:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ess, my comment was based on pure confusion. I had absolutely no idea what you were trying to say in your comment. It sort of sounded to me like something a politician would say to appase an audience without giving an actual answer. This is what I get out of it...

(1)  We need to deal with global warming.
(2) Reduction of co2 emmisions is vital to deal with global warming.
(3) Giving billions to poor countries without the major polluters being required to cut back on greenhouse emmisions is ok.
(4) You claim that is the right direction.
(5) Making our "human-centers" more "nature friendly" is a good direction, even when it doesn't involve cutting back on greenhouse emmisions.
(6) Spending billions more is fine even if it desn't deal with cutting back on emmisions, as long as there is a right direction, which is apparently giving billions to poorer countries, whi may or may not use it to lower greenhouse emmisions.
(7) Small island nations will not go under as long as they have more money, even if the major countries do not make cuts backs.
(8) There is no requirement to make them make cutbacks.

SOmehow you feel this is a good answer that will benefit us all. Are you all so caught up in Obama's spending spree that you hav become completely desensitized to it? Hillary pledges hundreds of millions.....sure, so what? It's only money, right? So we're broke, raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow more, have millions unemeployed and have enslaved out future generations...so what? Keep on spending, chunking down those million dollar chips on red or black, since you are so far behind. Now you claim that, even with agreements that don't require any cutbacks on greenhouse emmisions, that's fine, too. Plunk down another billion dollar chip and spin the wheel.

The "Well, we gotta do someething" mantra is getting old, having been used on the stimulus, health care and global warming. How about putting some thought into doing the RIGHT thing, or something that makes sense? Tossing billion dollar bones to poor countries without making any committments to lower emmisions yourself makes no sense....and yet you claim that that's ok because it's worth it. As I said, I find that confusing...

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


34 posted 12-20-2009 10:48 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Your list of alternatives were your conclusion, Grinch.


No they weren’t Mike. They were the possible outcomes. I haven’t mentioned my conclusions yet.

quote:
It appears your course of action would be to do something, even if you need it or not.


Nope, wrong again Mike.

I think we should do something because we’re going to have to at some point in any case. I’m sure you’ll agree it’ll be a whole lot cheaper and easier to move away from fossil fuel before it runs out. Or are you hoping you’ll be dead before that happens Mike?

(In case you’re confused Mike the above is my conclusion)


quote:
I really don't consider you qualified to speak for Ayn Rand.


Based on your record of getting things completely wrong in this forum Mike I don’t consider you qualified to judge who’s qualified to speak for Rand.

I’ll file your comment right next to the twaddle you came out with about Obama and suicide classes for old folk – it isn’t in the same league – but it’s close.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 12-20-2009 12:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...according to you. I have no problem being in that group. I would be concerned if I weren't.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


36 posted 12-20-2009 01:52 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


See there you go again Mike – making things up.

I never said I was right, I just offered my conclusion with regard to the choices and possible outcomes I posted earlier.

I’ll happily hold my hand up and admit that I don’t know whether human activities have affected global warming, nobody does for sure – but I don’t think we need to know for sure. There are other very good reasons to move away from a reliance on fossil fuel regardless of glodal warming, not least of which is that oil isn’t a sustainable energy source. If such a move reduces global warming, that’s a bonus.

Rand would call that a logical plan based on rational self-interest.

I call it common sense.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


37 posted 12-20-2009 01:59 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

And what about China and Indonesia,
(and India where there are over 400 million
without electricity), who won’t be playing
along?  Or is it enough for the West,
(especially the US), to be the pointless
sacrificial lamb?

This is all another adolescent Western guilt trip
exploited for the transfer of money and power.

And over it is the comfort that it will be someone
else’s money, someone else’s otherwise good chance
at a good life in the West at least that is thrown into the pyre.

It’s obscene how the Western self anointed Brahmin
expect the rest of the world to pander to their  priorities,
which by the way profit them.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 12-20-2009 02:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

There are other very good reasons to move away from a reliance on fossil fuel regardless of glodal warming, not least of which is that oil isn’t a sustainable energy source.

I agree.

The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations, but they do not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions

That relates to moving away from a reliance of fossil fuels....how?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


39 posted 12-20-2009 04:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations


The poorer developing nations are tomorrow’s polluters Mike, they need power to develop and they can’t afford the cleaner alternatives. They’ll build the crappy inefficient power stations we were using fifty or sixty years ago unless someone makes the alternative more affordable. In that light climate aid seems like a sensible option.

quote:
but they do not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions


I guess we’ll just have to trust America, China and India on that one Mike, hopefully common sense will prevail and they’ll realise it’s in their own long term self-interest. What we can’t do is use their inaction as an excuse not to act – that’d be just plain stupid - akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 12-20-2009 05:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, it's akin to cutting off your  fingernail to spite your face. Without the participation of America, China, India and Russia that would be a better comparison.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 12-20-2009 05:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures have killed at least 19 people across Europe as well as severely disrupting air, rail and road transport.
At least 15 people froze to death overnight in Poland as temperatures dipped way below freezing. In parts of Germany a figure of -33C was recorded.
Flights have been cancelled, train services have been severely affected and roads made impassable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8423442.stm

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A fierce weekend storm that dropped record snowfall and stranded travelers up the coast from Virginia to New England turned out not to be as naughty as many had feared by Sunday — and its nicest accomplishment may simply be leaving many with the prospect of a very white Christmas.

Residents throughout the mid-Atlantic and Northeast mostly holed up for the weekend, then dug out from as much as 2 feet of snow to find sunny, mostly calm skies under a blanket of white unspoiled by car exhaust and passers-by.
To the south, others struggled with the aftermath of the storm that stranded hundreds of motorists in Virginia and knocked out power to thousands, but could have been much worse.
On the cusp of the winter solstice, the storm dropped 16 inches of snow Saturday on Reagan National Airport outside Washington — the most ever recorded there for a single December day — and gave southern New Jersey its highest single-storm snowfall totals in nearly four years.
The National Weather Service said the storm gave Philadelphia, which began keeping records in 1884, its second-largest snowfall: 23.2 inches. Even more was recorded in the Philadelphia suburb of Medford, N.J., at 24 inches.
Around New York City, the brunt of the storm hit Long Island, with whiteout conditions and 26.3 inches in Upton, a record since measurements began in 1949. Nearly 11 inches of snow fell on New York City, and the storm could be the worst the city has seen since about 26 inches fell in February 2006, National Weather Service meteorologist Patrick Maloit said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_re_us/us_storm_rdp

Polar bears are passing out vacation brochures for American and European trips. Curse that global warming!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


42 posted 12-20-2009 06:22 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


And yet we’ll probably still have another recorded rise in the average temperature next year Mike, just like the year before that and the year before that..

I guess it's the word average that some people have a problem with.

Curse that global warming indeed.


Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


43 posted 12-20-2009 08:31 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

LR-

I don't have a problem with imperialism,

I have a problem with 48% of the population that who claim they are against imperialism, but are convinced that it serves a greater purpose like "protecting the environment" or "Civilizing the Indians" or "Woman's rights" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or any reason we list to go to war.

I just find it really Ironic and kinda funny.


G-

Well I understand what you are getting at, but I think the question I am posing is not "global warming is garbage", but the "'global warming propaganda' by the government to convince 50+% of poeple that is OK to force another poorer country to do something they don't want to do. The bigger country motivated  by ideals to fix the world order-these poeple who claim to dislike imperialism"

Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


44 posted 12-20-2009 08:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I don't have a problem with imperialism,

I have a problem with 48% of the population that who claim they are against imperialism, but are convinced that it serves a greater purpose like "protecting the environment" or "Civilizing the Indians" or "Woman's rights" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or any reason we list to go to war.

I just find it really Ironic and kinda funny.



So then you're just straight up in favor of imperialism for the purpose of establishing an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship -- for the purpose of exploiting weaker undeveloped nations.

Ok.. well this is at least honest. If not frightening.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 12-20-2009 09:36 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Bob, you have a real habit of jumping in to either criticize me or defend others for comments I make to them.



     Yes.

     Given the fact that I believe in intervention and you don't, that would be a disagreement we would have, wouldn't it?  However, I'm not a government and don't have extra power to abuse.  If you have very private things to say to somebody and don't want other people talking about those things, say them in private where others do not see and hear what you have to say.

     If I see something as abusive, I have a right and an obligation to speak up.  I should be somewhat restrained in how I do so, but the obligation is there.

     If I see somebody else speak abusively to you, I have the same obligation.  If I don't like what President Obama does, I have the obligation to speak up about that.  It is the same inconvenient obligation all around.  I am not sorry about it.  It is an obligation.  If I do it abusively, I am sorry for any abuse I convey.  That is an obligation I have as well, as well as a privilege.

     Grinch can defend himself.  I can react to some of the things you said.  You claiming ground on the subject of Ayn Rand was, I thought, claiming territory you thought you had a right to.  Unfortunately, you thought your right preempted the rights of others, for example, Grinch, but who knows who all else that might include.  Your feeling of correctness doesn't match your grasp of logical reasoning.  Ayn Rand demanded a high degree of logical reasoning ability in addition to belief in her thought.  Your ability to speak for her is limited by those difficulties.

     The train is somewhat shaky but solid enough for the discussion, I think.

     I don't lay claim to speak for her by the way, perhaps Nathaniel Brandon, though they had a parting of ways.  


My comment is this:
quote:

Grinch can speak for Ayn Rand if he wants, and his understanding and authority for doing so come from a different place than your does, but it's still quite real and shouldn't be dismissed.  And Essorant and I, for that matter, aren't trying to pull one over on you or the country or the world by disagreeing with you about climate change.



Which is why I think you simply haven't read what I've said or are plain making things up when you reply:

quote:
  
I must assume you feel that grinch cannot speak for himself and needs your defense.



     As for your belief that I am demeaning you, I assume that you're willing to show me exactly where I did that?  I'd be interested in seeing that for myself.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


46 posted 12-20-2009 09:42 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

No I am for Imperialism to protect our country from invasion. This may mean forming alliances with countries or taking over countries who's government are a threat to the United states. Sometimes blocking trade to countries who fund terrorism I have no problem with. This may be associated with neo-conservatism, but I don't want to invade a innocent country for the purpose of making allies.
    
I don't necessarily agree with keeping poeple poor for the sake to make us rich, since it breeds instability. This is generally considered neo-liberal (Clinton Policy)  

Imperialism isn't always bad, but anything can be used badly.


Imperialism has many forms. In fact many poeple consider globalization as Imperialism, contrary to my own beliefs.

LR-

I can see why it comes off that way.  I maybe was lazy.  The list was just a list of propaganda stunts.

No one has yet to tell me of what will happen if countries will boycott the global warming measures and who will be doing it. I don't care about the environmental consequences. (I am a evil conservative remember?)

juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


47 posted 12-20-2009 09:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If I see something as abusive, I have a right and an obligation to speak up.

No problem, Bob. Regard me as abusive or anything you like. Take my comments to others and attack me on them. That has been your modus operandi for some time now so have fun with it. My only error was giving your comments enough importance to mention them. I'll try not to let that happen again. By all means, live up to your obligations...
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


48 posted 12-20-2009 10:26 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

After the farce occuring in Copenhagen, it shouldn't be too much of a question as to the motives behind the "global warming" movement.

Perhaps Al Gore should step aside as the spokesperson for global warming and let Hugo Chavez take over.  Chavez seems to resonate better with the "global warming" base at the present time and is equally believable.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


49 posted 12-20-2009 10:40 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Balladeer


quote:
Giving billions to poor countries without the major polluters being required to cut back on greenhouse emmisions is ok.


No, I don't agree with that, Balladeer.  Most people, most efforts, most of the direction toward a "greener" humanity and trying to help reduce or lessen the impact of Global Warming are not represented by those kind of politics.    Ask almost anyone of the public or organizations that put heart and head into helping these causes.  They didn't vote for the politicians to do such things, they aren't the ones sending billions to the poor, and obviously wouldn't support major polluters not reducing their emissions.  What you are talking about is the politics of the politicians, not of the majority.  

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Better watch out or the global warming w   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors