Ben Stein is right!

I don't think you could have picked a more avid right winger, moreso than George Bush himself, but...I have to agee on many points, thoughI have not seen such reports that it had anything to do with Bush or Iraq anyway.

1) Very true

2) Very true (was he actually accused of creating a hurricane? I'm sure more Americans and innocent people would have been klled if he did

3)True again, but initial response was a joke.

4)FALSE: There is undeniable proof that the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally over many millenium. CO is a terribly harmful gas to mankind, regardless of it's effects on GW, our factories and pollutants DO and ARE killing people daily. The comments about Bush and hurricanes is just a proBUsh rant, irrelevant to Global warming as being a fact and also a way to detract from the reality of the situation.

5) True, but he is responsible for the safety and security of American citizens. Itis his responsibility to see that his states are prepared and acting accordingly and in the best interests of the people. Or is he no longer responsible for seeing to the safety, security of the people of America?

6)True, but again I have yet to hear he was responsible for people looting and shooting, that sounds a bizarre assumption of the always right wing again.

7)That's hard to believe, perhaps just as UNracist as others, but to say the least racist one would have to have a measure of how racist all other president's have been. Again, inflated praise without proof.

8) True, but a full scale invasion of another country can be launched in less time. What happened to being able to stop an incoming nuclear attack with short notice? Does that mean tha tAmerica gets obliterated before they can retaliate?

9) True, haven't heard otherwise.

10) Spun and planned: The news media is mainly owned and controlled by SBG, executives David G Smith, Frederick G Smith, J. Duncan Smith and the rest of SBG's board of directors are STAUNCH,Die-hard Republicans. they all own massive conglomerates that fund GWB's campaigns?
Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns or operates more than 61 television stations in 38 markets, including FOX, CBS, WB, NBC, ABC and UPN. So when you look at the actual ownership, not the Democratic balance they suggest when hiring lefty anchormen, they (US media) are 100% Right wing owned, operated and focused at making the right look.....right.
They push and focus on only the most radical left spin in order to reduce it's credibility. It also offers more credibility to right wing news direct from the White House, as it is seen as the only trustworthy source by many.

11) True

12)True and then speculative. Hilary Clinton is irrelevant, she DIDN'T get her way and there's no possible way you can equate the poor response on the ground to their ability to control medical, it is completely irrelevant. They run thier cities day in and day out, people don't die in droves due to political incompetence.

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them.

I'll let Ben Stein kiss Bush's a$$, but I'll praise everyone involved, including the Vancouver S&R team, the two little girls raising money by selling lemonade and everyone else around the world that has shown their support. I don't praise people for simply doing the job they are paid to do and expected to do.

Yes there was quite a bit of tripping up from many different parties, it doesn't mean Bush is the hero and everyone on the left f****d up. Yet that is exactly Ben Stein's implication. Ben Stein could use a few more being clever lessons, he has some credibility and would actually be an opinion worth listening to if he didn't plaster his comments with such blatant political favoritism.

He's not guilty of some and responsible for all.

He nominated himself, campaigned and fought for the position. Circumstances have left him holding the sh1tty end of the stick at the moment. Ho Hum, that's life.
GWB and global warming. I will take issue with. Indeed there is no incontravertible evidence that humans have worsened the consequences of global warming, equally there is none that they haven't.

However whether we are or aren't is immaterial in terms of GWB's position. His argument was that you europeans can cut into your profits making the world cleaner place if you want, we'll make a bigger profit, or in some cases such as the american steel industry simply stop making as a big a loss. He's definitely guilty of that.

He's also guilty for the war in Iraq, or at least shares equal blame with that poodle Blair and that fuckwit Madman Hussein. Life would be a lot simpler if they'd just had a triple threat match ala the WWE.

P.P.S
Salvation has always been I'm salved, we're salved, your not so we can demonise you and everything you believe in because your going to rot in hell for all eternity.
Righteousness, probably the most terrible affliction our race has ever suffered.

Tony has - with Yorkshire eloquence - said most of what I wanted to say.

You are, as you would, calling upon God to bless everyone concerned.

So tell me - what did the poor saps do in the first place for God to treat them so badly as to send a category 4+ hurricane right up their backsides? He is, after all, God and could easily have downgraded it to category 2 without anyone being the wiser. He chose not to do that so why do you think He's going to do anything now?

As for GWB... Does the phrase "The buck stops here" have no meaning anymore?

This planet has a very long history of change, from bad to worse, and from worst to better and all points in between. The initial rescue
workers were cut-off by the total failure
of the communications systems that were
completely destroyed by the storm. Unless
that was anticipated by those workers, no word of what was really needed was passed outside the area. The total lack of any kind of phone
services except satilite was the main cause
of the speedy response needed not getting there.

Like it or not, the USA is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. 50 States are independent in setting their own consititution, their own laws and their own government.....yet are united together as a single country for the purpose of security (militarily speaking); for the purpose of shared interests such as federal highways that cross from one state to the other; etc. The Federal government can make laws to trump state laws, but it is done rarely and usualy only in general terms, usually in guaranteeing human rights, equallity of justice, etc. (voting laws/restrictions, abortion rights (cloaked as women's rights), etc., etc.)

The point......the constitution does NOT allow the federal government to just walk in and take over a state's problems unless the state governing officials requests federal help. In the case of New Orleans, the federal government asked the state government 48 hours in advance and again in 24 hours advance if they wanted federal help. In both cases, the governor (together with his braintrust, the mayor of N.O.) decided they could handle it themselves and refused federal help.

The federal government has complete control of the US military and Congress has the right to declare war, yada, yada, yada......however, again....the constitution does NOT allow (and actually forbids) the federal government to use it's military against (or for) one of the states.....in which case, it would be anarchy of the federal governing officials.

After the federal government offered help to Louisiana, but was refused......it would have been against the law and grounds for impeachment if Bush had ordered soldiers into Louisiana to help maintain order and to evacuate those who needed help or who refused to leave. Those who think Bush is in trouble for handling the situation the way he did do not realize how much bigger trouble he'd be in had he just taken over the situation against the governor's wishes. He would have legal problems that would haunt him to the end of his term and more than likely get himself impeached.

The last thing this country needs if more federal power and less state's rights. The system works and the federal government is quick to help......but not in the case where it steps on the rights of the states to refuse help. Notice the state of North Carolina has already declared a state of emergency and has requested federal help. That just goes to show that the government in North Carolina is flexing some intelligence in the wake of Louisiana's extremely poor decision making.

Regardless.....the federal government is always ready to step in when a state government is in over their heads......yet they won't if the state government refuses federal help.

The people who should be held accountable for the calamity in New Orleans lies squarely on the shoulders of the mayor and governor of Louisiana as they reacted poorly (to put it mildly.....more like "irresponsibly") to the pending disastor having no workable game plan and showing little interest in helping their people out while simultaneously refusing federal help.

I agree that the hurricane wasn't GWB's fault, but he is ultimately responsible for the aftermath. He's the President and that is his job.

I think the title of the document says it all - "Get off his back". How about "no." Hes the President and the buck ultimately stops with him. Look at FEMA and DHS. DHS is GWB's creation and it failed to act quickly enough to save lives. He appointed people that don't have enough experience in disaster management to save themselves.

Initially, it is the state and local government's responsibility to respond to the problem. They were woefully unprepared to say the least. The federal government's response wasn't good enough either. Our National Guard levels are too low to respond to disasters like this.

I think whether global warming exists or not, we as a nation are big polluters and always have been. A big part of it is our fault, collectively. GWB has to become more environmentally sensitive. How about this - what if he doesn't drill for oil in the Arctic and instead searches for alternative fuels? That would be a start.

I think today, we do need a magician given the challenges we face. It isn't GWB.

The title started the sentance, so if anything it should have started with a comma?

I really hated to go off on Tony like that, but someone had to do it! ;\
[i]
P.S. I will stop commenting about my commenting now. :p

..without the request of the governor. But that did not stop Lincoln from sending Federal troops into the Southern states in 1861. There are plenty of things that are unconstitutional, but many (if not most) Presidents and Congress have put the constitution aside to the detriment of the rights and privileges of the individual states in many cases.

He is not allowed to act in the best interest of the people, meaning he is not allowed to work FOR the people. It's not a relative for or against.

by this carelessness, and I'm now considering lessons in american so I'll communicate like wot other peeple do.

LOL

Strangely considering I attacked the US president is some respects JD was the only one to argue with my comments in anyway. Similar posts in the past have had me labelled as commie pinko wet faggot with my head up my ass. Still maybe they'll respond this week.

Actually, the reality is that the American philosphy is much different than many foreign philosophies. In America when something goes wrong, we spend a vast amount of time and energy deciding who was at fault and pointing fingers. Actually resolving the issue can wait until we have someone to blame. In many foreign countries, they try to address the immediate issue first and then work towards preventing it in the future. That explains why people were still trapped and dying in the floods but the American politicians were only interested in calling for yet another commitee to evaluate what went wrong and how Bush screwed up.

.
I could have predicted such a response from you, as you continually misrepresent my positions in equally silly ways.

For the record, Bush is faltering badly in the area of illegal immigration. He's suggested giving amnesty to illegal aliens, whereas they should be rounded up and deported. He's failing to secure the borders to the degree I believe is necessary.

He's faltering badly reducing the size and scope of government as it pertains to social programs. He's advocating expanding them instead of reducing them (except social security, which he isn't taking far enough, if he takes it anywhere at all). His expansion of the Medicare program to include prescription drug benefits to all seniors was appalling.

He's doing a terrible job challenging the falsehoods levied against him by his political and journalistic opponents.

He's doing a terrible thing by not chastising the United Nations for the corrupt and flawed organization it really is, and calling them to task, even demanding resignations and restructuring. It's time somebody stand up and call them what they really are, and he's in the position to do it. But he's not doing it.

To suggest I think he's "God" who can 'do no wrong" is disingenuous. And since you know it, it's a lie as well. I've told you before, which only proves your disingenuous intentions to misrepresent.

In this case, and in similar cases, the governor is responsible for the state -- period -- not the president. That's the way our system has been structured. And it doesn't matter what state it is or who the president is or what the natural disaster is. And anyone who neither recognizes this or acknowledges this, it only goes to show his ignorance. But in your case, what else is new?

.
Someone whose opinion is based on real knowledge and insight is much more valuable than someone's opinion born out of ignorance.

Your opinion of the music business, for example, would carry much more credibility than someone who knows absolutely nothing about it. And conversely, Ben Stein's opinion, in this case, has much more credibility than yours.

Moreover, even if an opinion is slanted towards a particular ideology, it doesn't render the opinion baseless. In fact, when the opinion is offered as a counter-opinion, as this one is, it can lend to offer more perspective to an issue instead of less perspective. Let's read what Ben Stein has to say about it, and then let's read what Molly Ivans has to say about it, both may be favoring a certain slant, but then, at least, one may be compared to the other. (And the reader's bias will dictate the opinion to which he will lean.)

And to show how biased YOU are, even though you've made it your mission to point out the bias of people who FAVOR GWB, I've never seen you point out the bias of those who OPPOSE him. Therefore, you certainly show the side on which you fall. You are one of the most biased persons I've ever seen when it comes to sharing opinion, so using your own rules as applied to you, we should always dismiss what you say as biased, and always unworthy of consideration. (Which I pretty much do anyway.)

.
http://www.bariumblues.com/deadly_silences.htm

But whenever you read "Andrew", substitute "Katrina'. And whenever you read "Florida", substitute "Louisiana".

The story would read like it applied to 2005, not 1992.

For example, "So what actually did take place when Andrew survivors tried to get help from those collecting dead bodies in the aftermath? Well, I for one can give a firsthand account. About the third day into the aftermath, a long line of police cars cautiously drove into my area during the late afternoon. We had not had contact with any other people from outside the devastation up until this point.....six days into the aftermath, the Miami Herald read: Problems Plague Red Cross.......Today, in the year 2001, there still remains three ongoing tragedies created by Hurricane Andrew cover-ups."

Sound familiar? But what's the difference? One is Katrina, the other is Andrew. One is 2005, the other is 1992. One is Bush, the other is.......BUSH, but not the "hated Bush". And those "ongoing tragedies" were on Clinton's watch. What gives?

There was no such "outrage" in 1992 as there is today. It's fabricated outrage. It's a criticism looking for a reason to levee it (misspelling intended).

What a bunch of hypocrites who try to paint this one any different.

There are many countries that don't have ANY governmental oversight into polution from factories that polute much more than anything in the US.

This is just another myth, or an "extreme" comment on your part without ANY VALID, INDEPENDANT data to back this regularly repeated statement.

There is no doubt that this was not a "objective, independent" statement.

But as you pointed out, most of it is very valid. Some of the parts I feel were more of an emotional response to the more-rabid-than-usual comments that have been coming out in the last two weeks.

If at even a time of crisis like this, it is still a "get Bush at any costs" business as usual type of day. I think that there is plenty of time AFTER people have started their lives up again for the lunitic fringe on the left to go after Bush all over again.

If nothing else, even if you don't agree with my point of view, I do try to stay consistant. Why was it wrong to point out you holding Ben to a different standard than yourself? As for his voice, like many people for one side or the other do you think anyone other than people that have already made up their minds listen to him? Many people listen to people that will reinforce their own opinion rather than challenge their opinions.

there were a few major deposits before Bush ever got to get his hand in the game. That is the main point. The responsibility for the evacuation that would have saved many of these lives was completely the local governments "buck" and that stops locally.

When Bush was delayed in being able to send federal assistance, again it is time to be fair about where the blame is to lay.

When he got the ok, FEMA dropped the ball (or at least fumbled) and THIS is in his back yard so he is the buck holder on this one.

Guess there are a few "bucks" floating around, and each will get their share.

To just say he is the President so he is to blame for everything completely misrepresents how our government is setup.

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

true

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

true

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

maybe. category 5 is the worst category.
he didn't make it worse, but I doubt there were worse.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China , India, and Brazil . In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

a) what does this have to do with the hurricane "Katrina"?

b) prove it doesn't exist and that technology has not made it worse.

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

GWB is the overall boss of FEMA, FEMA has disaster releif plans that GWB was in charge of making sure were implemented.
( He is the Commander in Chief of ALL federal operations )

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

true

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

what proof?
besides washington being a slave owner, as were his cronies jefferson et al.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

the organisation framework at least should have been in place BEFORE katrina hit.
plenty of proof what damages can result in recent history.

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

wrong, the money paying for GWB's wars has crippled the money available for this type of emergency operation.

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

true

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

true, but it's great stress releif.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

yup, you might actually have health care for everyone in the country.

More Mysteries of Katrina:

Why is it that the snipers who shot at emergency rescuers trying to save people in hospitals and shelters are never mentioned except in passing, and Mr. Bush, who is turning over heaven and earth to rescue the victims of the storm, is endlessly vilified?

check cnn archives from last tuesday, they actually have full story about it, as part of the katrina coverage.

What church does Rev. Al Sharpton belong to that believes in passing blame and singling out people by race for opprobrium and hate?

the church of the KKK?
the church of Hitler?

What special abilities does the media have for deciding how much blame goes to the federal government as opposed to the city government of New Orleans for the aftereffects of Katrina?

it's called capitalism, the controversy sells papers and increases advertising revenue.

If able-bodied people refuse to obey a mandatory evacuation order for a city, have they not assumed the risk that ill effects will happen to them?

yup, it's thier own fault if they CHOSE to stay.
not everyone in NO could leave.

When the city government simply ignores its own sick and hospitalized and elderly people in its evacuation order, is Mr. Bush to blame for that?

yup, when he found out about it the city governement officials should have been imprisoned and the troops sent in to evac those being left to die alone in a hospital.

Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?

what? you mean the christain beleif in omnipotence is FALSE?!?!?!?!?!

Where did the idea come from that salvation comes from hatred and criticism and mockery instead of love and co-operation?

where did the belief come from that we need salvation?
history is full of examples of hatred, criticism and atrocities being commited in "The Name of Christ"

I wrote: "Encourage development of more efficient use of energy sources" in my previous post. That is another way to say "conservation" :-) We have tax breaks that encourage the development and the purchase of hybrid vehicles, which save on fuel and emissions, vehicles such as the Ford Escape, that charge their batteries while idling or braking, so they have even better gas mileage in city traffic than on the highway. You may have seen the advertisements by GE touting their more efficient locomotives and jet engines, and greater efficiency is a form of conservation.

As for myself, I chose a home that is only 4 miles from work, and I drive a Saturn SL2, so I use less gasoline than most commuters, having to fill my tank only once every two weeks or so. I have coworkers that drive trucks who have commutes over 50 miles away, and they are hurting due to their choices to live far from work and to drive gas guzzlers. Living close to work is a good form of conservation, plus only have to spend 10 to 15 minutes (one-way) in traffic twice a day, instead of the hour commutes some have.

The key is "honest profit", which in my opinion, is charging what the market can bear in free competition, without lying or cheating or bribing others, and without collusion with others in a way that restricts competition.

I think that the jury is still out on that one. It would seem a no-brainer that they would grow faster but studies have shown that land plants, trees, etc don't seem to know what to do with the extra CO2 and just excrete it. Their systems are too finally balanced to handle it in any major fashion. It's generally though, anyway, that even if these studies were not accurate that plants might handle some of the CO2 but not all. Most atmospheric CO2 is buffered in the ocean but that doesn't seem to be able to handle all of the rise.

Any way you cut it, though, average temperatures are going up, CO2 is going up and the unanswered question is "is it our fault?". The real question, though, is "can we do anything, anyway?".

We'll find out...

:D

And once upon a time, there was no overwhelming evidence that the world is round or that it is not at the center of the solar system:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/

There might not still be any "overwhelming evidence" that global warming exist, but there is evidence. Do I blame Bush for not signing the Kyoto treaty? Of course I do. Do I think the Kyoto treaty could of prevented this? Of course not. The Kyoto treaty is too little, too late, but it is better than nothing at all. Its benefits are rather long term rather than immediate. At least he now admitted his own share of responsibility for dealing with the hurricane. That might gain back some of the sympathy from the people.

So true. I am not the least bit shocked that Katrina came up as part of the Supreme Court Justice hearings. It's good that the Dems want to protect the poor by making sure Roberts votes the right way if a hurricane ever makes it to the Supreme Court.

A focus discussion fo G8 yet again this year was to actually investigate and monitor the amount of harmful emissions from manufacturing.

The greatest source of these emissions is said to be the USA, sorry JD, but that's just common knowledge. Sure some countries burn whatever whenever, usually to produce products for US based corporations that have outsourced.

GWB has refused year after year to acept the fact that gobal warming does occur, and that man made emissions contribute to it. FINALLY, this year he has admitted that it does have effects and agrees that more studies should be performed.

The only catch is, he will not permit testing in the USA. WHY NOT?

Europe is known to e one of themore concious continents when it comes to clean air and emissions control, GWB suggests that such test be undertaken in Europe, where results would possibly be the lowest of all.

Tony Blair has commented:
"Climate change is, in my view, long term, the single biggest issue that we face," Blair told the House of Commons Wednesday after returning from talks with Bush.

"The brutal truth is, without America in a process of dialogue and action in the international community, we are not going to make progress on it."

Bush has played lip service for sound bytes, he is not prepared to do anything about it, even though he agree it is an issue to be adressed.

If in your mind, America is not the largest contributor of harmful emissions from production, then you coul dnot possibly not agree that you are a MAJOR contributor. In which case, would it not make sense that test on global effects would include testing in America? Of course it would.

But as Bush seems to like to do, he'll play on both sides of the matter as always. 'Okay, global warming does need to be addressed, just not in my backyard'.

What a useless leader, he flies by the seat of his pants and makes the rest up as he goes, expecting people to follow along.

Carbon Monoxide has a far greater immediate effect on our day to day lives. Emissions control has reduced it but nowhere near as much as needed.

If I spend a few days in Toronto, I have a constant headache, attributed to CO inhalation. It's a major concern of city officials as police and road crews claim more and more sick time, and some even die. CO kills thousands of people in North America every year, and yet people just complain that gas is too expensive instead of looking for alternate methods of transportation that will reduce the CO in our cities.

No, it's not GW, but extensive pollution is a result of poor Air Care standards imposed in countries. Increased emissions control works for the GW issue and our immediate health risks. Unless we can test it, we can't address it. GWb agrees its a problem but refuses to participate in finding out hw much and what can be done about it. Head in the sand syndrome....again.

Somebody needs to just go and shoot the bastard, let us all get on with our lives and develop into responsible nations. They shoot all the other presidents, why no whacko assasin for this one?

Notice I didn't use God.....

First of all, its unfair to lay it all on Bush. Clinton had 8 years to make major improvements to the environment, and I didn't see a lot of new initiatives that had any real impact beyond a photo op. And frankly I doubt whether any of the Republican candidates in 2000 would have done anything different -its groupthink. Do you honestly think it would be different with Cheney?

I don't advocate killing anyone, even in jest. If it was stupid for Pat Robertson, its stupid for Oz too.

James

who is against people shooting looters that would break into your home.

[i]"Somebody needs to just go and shoot the bastard, let us all get on with our lives and develop into responsible nations. They shoot all the other presidents, why no whacko assasin for this one?"[/i]

Consistancy, with OZ it is only a myth.

You may continue with your foaming rant now. Hope no one sees you like that, thinks you have rabies and shoots you. I only condone the shooting of looters and violent criminals, not ranting loons. We have nicely padded rooms for people like that.

In case I am being to subtle, your raving like a bleeding nutcase repeating the same horse and pony act any chance you can. We get it, you can't believe Bush didn't decide to lead the way on shutting down all the manufacturing in the world.

Where are the FACTS that american factories polute more than Canadian or Mexican factories? Or are you saying because we have MORE factories we emit more? There are NO enviornmental standards in Mexico that I am aware of and I KNOW they can't hold a candle to the standards the EPA holds us to. How about Brazil? India? China? Corea? All of these have a tougher environmental standard than the US? How about Russia? Don't make me friggen laugh. How about in the middle east? you have been ranting about sludge being dumped from passing ships in your backyard, what about over there? Do they have the same environmental laws that they follow?

No matter who did what in the past, GWB is the current leader who refusing to act responsibly, even though he has admitted there is a problem that needs to be adressed.

'Yes it needs to be addressed, go and address it on your own then, it's got nothing to do with us'

There is NO relation whatsoever between wonderign why a presidet hasn't been shot and shooting someone breaking into your home. Not even th emost remote similarity, exept but require shooting something.

that's where Americans are so different from the rest of the world, they se one as all, ALL the time. There's no exception to the rule, there is no case by case opinion, it's like Maxwell and his handful of core values that his entire existence and every decision is based on.

Proof you dont see anything for what it really is: "We get it, you can't believe Bush didn't decide to lead the way on shutting down all the manufacturing in the world."

You obciously DOn't get it at all, I have never said as much, NEVER implied even shutting down a SINGLE factory or have even hinted at it.

Emissions control does not mean closing factories, it means ensuring they are spending the money to run as clean of an operation as they posibly can.

Nice righty assumtpion there, way to go, no different that Ben Stein saying that people accuse GWB of creating hurricanes.

The fact? America is an industrial nation. It is a country full of manufacturing, processing, refining etc. You have more factories than Canada or Mexico or Russia, you have more production than Canada, Mexico or Russia, your VOLUME is always higher in everythng you do, you have mroe people you have mroe consumption you burn mroe fossil fuel than any nation on Earth.

But hey, you arent polluting as much as anyone else. naw, that's just lefty BS.

And show me where I said you deemed him a God.

Others do, you try not to talk about the issues you dislike as you wouldn't want to bash Bush, but others place him on a cloud above the rest of the world.

As quoted from my post that you misread and posted an irrelvant reply to:

"People will defend his actions without question at any time and for any reason, just to support him. He's never to blame, he's never responsible, he's never the cause, he's GOD? I don't think so."

Once again, before you start calling people names, try understanding what you read for once.

Edit: and don't flatter yourself, Max, I'm not always talking about you.

Should the emisions level per factory be held to a different standard than the emisions level per factory in Canada or Mexico? I don't have a problem with that, except we would be LOWERING our standards to match the emisions from the Mexican plants.

Because we have more, our factories have to run cleaner than anyone elses? Blow it out your ear. That kind of crap is what gives no credibility to your argument and why America will NOT listen to it. We will NOT penalize ourselves for being prosperous. We will hold each plant to a set standard. Tell me when the countries I listed match the same per factory emisions standards, and then I will listen to you talk about us not doing our part.

Who will determine what the emisions levels will be then? Envirionmental groups that don't worry about scientific facts to backup their claims? Where do you determine the point of just how clean the emisions are?

THAT's the cause of warming. It's a greenhouse gas. Nice and clean, doesn't smell, can't see it. And America produces more of it - by a street - than any other country in the world! More cars, bigger cars, more travel, more heating, more cooling, more electricity, more, well, [b]everything[/b].

[collapses, frothing at the mouth]

the regular solar cell technology, has a very short lifespan, brings a swathe of disposal/recycling problems as they are full to the brim of all sorts of toxic metals.
However your point about certain vested interests not being overly interested in pursuing non-fossil fuel alternatives is horribly true.

In the UK theres been panic buying of petrol and diesel. Various company bosses rolling round the office floor laughing their tits off I should think.

What the livin hell are you on about?

When did I say that you need to have more emissions control than any other country?

Then you whole conclusion "Because we have more, our factories have to run cleaner than anyone elses?" is false and based on nothing I've said. In which case, I suppose blow it out your...ear too then.

That's not what I said at all. The allied nations that are concerned about Emissions from these massive companies ARE and HAVE been testing their owen in order to reduce the emissions levels from them. It was agreed at G8 that thre needs to be mreo study into these factories to determine what level of effect they have on th equality of our air ad the whole GW issue. GWB agreed but said that they can't be testing American companies?!?!? WTF is that about?

They will be testing and collecting data in England, Vanada, China, Russia, France etc. for some reason they cannot do so in the USA, where the most factories and the greatest potential for determining harmful effects of emissions is to be found. Do you get it yet?

Nobody says you have mroe wasteful factories.
Nobody says you have to shut down your industry.
Nobody says that other factories have lower standards of emissions control than you do.

ALL your posts here have been rants at me for comments I haven't made. Either get over your personal issues or pay more attention to wehat it is I'm saying.

My point is, you (the USA)agree there's a problem and that it is increased by man made emissions.

You also agree that tests should be done to find out just how much of an effect this may have on GW.

In order to TEST how harmful these emissions may be, or what contributing factor towards GW they actualy are, one would need to conduct tests in industrialized countries, England, Canada, Germany, Russia, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Your country has MORE manufacturing and production facilities than others, your country has also been the most reluctant (of those mentioned) to enforce emissions standards and seek alternative methods of operation. (There are factories in Europe that use waste from local farms to operate.)

So YOUR president says sure we need to test and find out exactly how much of an effect this has on us all, but just don't be testing in America.

Now THAT, is ignorant, retarded, anal and completely stupid for your president to say.

Get it now? Doesn't matter what Mexico does, the large industrialized nations are TRYING to work together to find facts and create a report that shows the impacts, no matter WHAT is said by others, Bush will always claim that the results don't include American firms and therefore American firms should not be considered for any action, OR that the tests don't include American firms and are therefore irrelevant to the USA.

Either way it's a cop out, Bush knows it, Blair said as much and most others at G8 have concurred.

But hey, twist it up and flame me again, it's better than a thoughtful reply....easier anyway.

If you are referrign to my post, it's Carbon MONOXIDE (CO), not CO2.

CO is the hazrdous vehicle emision, in fact thats a great wy of comitting a quick suicide, ol'hose in the exhaust pipe jobbie.

CO causes headaches (walking in a city), respiratory sickness (Carboxyhemogloben) and death. Traffic cops and road workers have been killed by CO exposure, their blood is stripped of white blood cells and they literally suffocate.

That is the most harmful emission from burning fossil fuels, people complain about black smoke belching from cars (Hydrocarbons), but hydrocarbons are relatively harmless and do dissipate and break down at altitude, CO does not.

And yes you are right, CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, but th eTOXIC gas for us that is also detrimental to the atmosphere is CO, it is also a colourless odourles sgas, that is only slightly lighter than air, so much like propane it is undetectable until too late, the main reason they add teh stink to propane gas, so it's noticed when leaking. But CO is an emission of carbon based fuels, and is an extreme pollutant that kills thousands each year.

And if you weren't talkng to me, well bugger off then. :)

I love Ben Stein and I want to bear his offspring.

I think the term slander would be more accurate except to liberals who want to keep making religion an issue.

Heresy - An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.

Slander - Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

The original comment had no reference to religion but rather to the incorrect reporting and finger pointing directly at GWB regarding the poor response to the hurricane.

I look kinda like Ben Stein?

LMAO

so I've buggered off, now.

The victims are paying for that. You can't point at GWB exclusively although as the top man he is ultimately responsible. From municipal, state, federal and FEMA it was an unending clusterfuck. Sure you can blame GWB but there is enough blame to go around for everyone. Face it, the ball got dropped. Now they should get it fixed before there is a next time.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

In Canada, anything said in the House of Commons or Senate is protected, which produces the "step outside the chamber and say that reaction".

In general, the law in Canada (and Canada US and Britain oftend cite each other's common law for precedents) argues that people in the public eye are open to more than the usual standard for slander, because of the nature of their job, part of which is to do things that open themselves up for criticism. But I do remember a landmark BC case where a cartoonist drew a cartoon of a politician pulling the wings off of a fly, and the court upheld that there were things that were beyond the pale.

Thus saying that so and so is incompetant is fair game for public discourse, saying that he is cruel and sadist to animals is slanderous.

Slag is more of a British term, but many Canadians would know what you mean.

james

Man that thought picture made me have to get my whiskey out and put it in my TR mug and drink it!

Lawd I am gonna have nightmares for a week after thinking about that!

I've got this niggling feeling they call them something else.