Bush

Er... just to clarify... I consider myself Democrat even though I can't vote yet - and I think Clinton's behavior was disgraceful. Not all Democrats are happy with what he did, you know.

 

okay...that was funny (i had to download real player, but it was worth it!)
anyway, our president has said some funny ones too, trust me!
(i still despise bush...never as much as he despises me, but still a lot)

 

I understand and agree with a lot of your critics...but...your speak about make love and not war...but i feel you very agressive to..

 

I know, I'm known for over-reacting...
My boyfriend bothers me with this all the time!

 

There is a very good reason to think he's not a good president for the U.S to...

He's the first representative anti-ecological man. Remember the Kyoto accord...remeber the joanesbourg congress...and remeber that before he was president he was (and he's always) a petrolian man (like his father). In fact i'm very supucious about his ideological words of peace and freedom, just like for the reason he mention for the Kyoto thing (He say : "eclology is a matter of person, every one make his choice" or something remeber that the U.S. is the first polluar country in the world and we are ALL concerned and our children too ) in a fact, a petrol area in groenland was protected by kyoto and i just asking if it is not ( like the war in iraq, for a father to his son, and to put a governement more nice with the U.S politic) just to take economical advantage in his favor and once again only in favor of the U.S. ?

I repeate myself, my english is very poor, so i hope you will understand my word Be nice

 

I guess I am...

 

you are what?

 

suspicious ?

 

WE have little kids, junior high kids who, when polled say that oral sex is ok b/c its not really sex. Monica anyone?


When was this?

 

To use Kyoto against Bush is very hypocritical. Clinton never intended to pass the Kyoto treaty the way it was and he stalled on it so the incumbent could take the public blame. In the form that Kyoto was in would have not been passes by any President. This is politics and to cast a label such as anti-ecological is completely off base.

 

says who?

 

Originally ran on June 11, 2001 on USA TODAY's website.

WASHINGTON ? As President Bush headed off Monday to face environmental critics in Europe, he fired a parting shot at the global warming treaty he has rejected. He called the Kyoto Protocol unrealistic, costly and "fatally flawed."

In that assessment, he has some unexpected supporters: Clinton administration experts.

Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult ? and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge.

That reassessment helped fuel Bush's decision to reject the Kyoto treaty, said Lawrence Lindsey, the president's economic adviser. Instead of embracing binding limits on greenhouse gases, Bush pledged on Monday a modest package of actions to combat global warming. They include a research initiative to fill gaps in scientists' understanding of climate change and increased use of renewable energy. But he didn't call for new money.

"America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility," said Bush, who is expected to hear vociferous complaints about his approach during his five-nation tour of Europe. Bush said the treaty would harm the economy and exclude China, the world's second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases after the USA.

The treaty, negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, aimed to combat emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that most scientists believe trap heat in the atmosphere. The treaty required the United States to reduce its emissions by 2012 to 7% below its 1990 levels.

At the time, the Clinton White House estimated that the cost of reaching that target was relatively low: about $7 billion to $12 billion a year starting in 2008, when binding reductions would begin phasing in. An average household's energy bills would rise $70-$110 a year, and gasoline prices would inch up no more than 6 cents a gallon, the White House said.

Other government cost estimates were far higher. The Department of Energy estimated that gasoline prices would have to rise 66 cents a gallon ? or 53% over a projected 2010 price ? to meet Kyoto's emissions targets.

To keep his cost estimates down, President Clinton envisioned an emissions-trading system in which countries unable to meet the greenhouse-gas reduction targets would get credits for helping other nations exceed the standards. The idea was that when all the treaty's members averaged out their emissions, the world's total output would meet a global target.

For example: If the United States wanted to emit more carbon dioxide one year, it could help Russia get below its emissions standard by paying high-polluting Russian industries to adopt technologies to clean up their dirty plants.

Clinton administration economists say that, in retrospect, their low cost estimates were unrealistic.

That's just one article.

 

I think you missed our point.
We are not attacking Bush and defending Clinton... You don't need to say "Clinton was just the same" because we know about it.
And we also disagree.

I'd rather pay a little more my gaz than die of a skin cancer in 5 years!

 

Im not saying that you were blindly attacking Bush, but that the Kyoto Protocol was an unrealistic goal for Americans at this time. It simply would not have been passed. This is compounded by the fact that we have energy problems here as it is.


What I am saying is that people are attacking Bush simply because he is George W Bush. Most people(also most young people) tend to very liberal and don't understand the effects of gaining the idealistic goals they wish for.

EDIT: I also don't wish for skin cancer, but that would be a moot point if I couldn't afford to pay my bills. I would have nowhere to live.

 

Well...
Here in Europe, gasoline costs 5 times what it costs in the USA, and we still get places to live in.
You just drive less, walk more. That's way healthier for you and the planet you live on.
There is one other thing we have a LOT in Europe : public transportation. Juct check out London's, Paris' or Brussels' map of public transportations and you get the point...

 

So Im supposed to walk a thirty minute drive to school? What about my one hour drive to work? Things are different here than in Europe. We have suburban areas which are very much distanced from the industrial areas, business areas, etc...

I wasn't just talking about gasoline, rather our heating bills and our electricity bills.

 

LOL, am I the only one here that dislikes both Clinton and Bush?

 

I very much dislike Clinton and Im not terribly impressed with Bush.

 

Well. If you built your cities in order to have to drive an hour to buy your dinner, then don't complain about gazoline bills...

There was a thing I was thinking about lately. There is a "made in dignity" shop, near to my appartment. They sale things from all over the world, handmade shirts, candles, carpets, lights, tons of beatiful little things to putt on my fireplace and walls.
But the first time I saw the prices, I wanted to rush out. It was overpriced!
100 euros for a pullover! (a very large, heavy blue pullover, though)...
And then noticed the paper stapled to it. It said : "made in dignity" is a brand of crafts and cloths made by people who were decently paid and work on a decent schedule" (i don't remember the exact term). That basicly means : you are going to pay more for everything you'll find in here. But you can be assured they were not made by 8 year old children working 20 hours a day for an appaling pay.

And I think the people's dignity is worth paying more for the clothe. I'll be carefull with it and won't buy numerous (I couldn't afford it), but I feel good wearing it because I know it stands as the symbol of "we are privileged people who have been born in the lucky 10% of earth that own 90% of the ressources, and we are conscious of the luck we have. So the least we can do, is giving a little more to the others."
I'll buy less comic books. Life is a question of priorities.

And with Kyoto's treaty, my priority is to not increase the ozone's hole... I'll pay more if I must.

People will say I'm a darn utopist, saying "make love not wars" and posting things as I just did. Well. I kept hope and belief in humanity, sorry these guys have lost their dreams!

 

First off, Im pretty sure that I didn't build or design any of the cities that are in the United States. Secondly we have states that are bigger in size than Belgium.

I am really glad that you can be kind enough to spend a little more of your hard earned cash on something you believe in. What about when somebody has a family to feed? Do you think that they would put the welfare of anyone else in front of their children?

I can agree that it is our children that we look after when striving for a better environment. But these steps have to be gradual and realistic. We have to be prepared for these changes socially as well as technologically. Its difficult to be happy about the state of the environment when your family lives in a cardboard box. That's a bit of a hyperbole, I know, but I think you get the picture. The goals have to be realistic and the goals of Kyoto were not realistic for the US.

 

Well You have sates that are smaller than Belgium too. Let's consider European community, if you prefer.

I think you have a point here : things are slow to start and settle down. That's also a reason why "they" (not pointing anyone, this concerns europe as well) won't start it : because they won't get to see any effects nor results to enjoy. This is not a minute-maid effect. This takes generations!
That' why I think people are reluctant to it : they think of themselves. It's too late for themselves, that's for sure. They will NOT get to see a better world with their own eyes, so why bother paying more, working more for it, if they won't get it?
Because it's going to be profitable to their children, and their children's childrens, etc etc etc...

In France we had a king 200 years ago who planted thousends of threes "for future kings to have mats!"... Now, we don't need trees for our boats anymore. Times have changed. But we have beautiful forests!

Plan the tree, you won't see it grown, but your children will, and they'll be thankfull for it...

 

Just a question: Have you ever been to the US? Im not trying to be rude, but Im just wondering.

Most of the people in the US are very self-absorbed, materialistic, and cynical people. But they are also just people that try to get by, provide for their families, and just want to be relatively happy. Does that make them selfish? No, I don't think so.

The American public have grown so apathetic to the cares of the world that they give the power to relatively few people to care for the concerns of it. They would rather turn a blind eye and deal with there own problems. As somebody put it here earlier, they are very "isolationist". It probably is not a good idea to operate that way, but their views(or lack of them) are justified by their concerns for their own well-being.

 

I am not self-absorbed and materialistic. Many people in the world, not just the United States, are very self-absorbed.

 

I am not self-absorbed and materialistic.

Im sure you are not by your standards, but not with the rest of the world. They (not everyone) have quite a different viewpoint of our lifestyle. Hence, the anti-American sentiments. If you ever go anywhere else besides the US, you will see the difference in the lifestyles.

 

My point was that people all over the world, not just America, are self-absorbed.


Darth_Olsentwins: It says in your bio that you are from the US. Why are you insulting yourself?