 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
06-20-2001, 05:42 PM
|
#131 |
|
Manshoon
 Join Date: June 18, 2001
Location: England
Posts: 217
|
Charean -
how are my views extreme? which ones exactly? on other topics of looking after the world and doing something positive - great. we all need to accept it's our personal responsibilty, mine, first and foremost, would be a good attitude rather than assuming govt's to act for us. don't recall making any ref: to big dumb american's manybe this is your hangup. one reason for joining this discussion is to elicit a response from individuals rather than relying on assumption. Dawnchaser - very valid point and not at all arrogant. very in favour of kyoto for simple reason of survival. call me selfish if you like. the arguments about politics can go on forever, and we either agree or disagree with our govt's regardless of whether we voted them in or not. sadly they do act on our behalf - allegedy. their motivations are based on financial considerations - the more they have to lose in terms of economic growth, the less likely they are to agree it's a good idea. this is why i like countries who actually give a shit now. greed is a very nasty quality. it might mean that they have more but some other poor bugger has less. i guess that's just capitalism for you. doesn't work on any other basis. been told off for getting off important issues that this forum is about so perhaps you could set up another room for discussing your other views? ooh, can post a smirky. sorry smillie:  :Moni - I didn't say 'retarded' I said mentally not quite right, which is a subtle way of incorporating a whole host of mental/emotional disturbances that no-one really knows how to treat. schitzophrenia and psychotic behaviours etc...,I don't know about you, but i feel uncomfortable about judging someone who kills or maims others' to the point of sentencing them to death. mental illness quite often has a cause and can be treated but often not. placing someone who is a danger to society in a secureand humane unit is fair enough. they are treated with respect and they don't bother the rest of us. the death sentence places the executioner, by which i mean the people happy to see it happen in the same position as the killer themselves. emotionally, i can understand your viewpoint but i can't go there intellectually, not only would i be as bad as the murdere, but i'd be passing sentence as an upstanding member of society in a completely cold-bloodied way - i find this unacceptable. Yes. i can think of a solution. the gun laws should change really, shouldn't they. freedom to bear arms is all very well but what about the freedom to live without someone accidentaly blowing your head off if you annoy them? or what about the thousands of children who find a loaded gun in a drawer and die from curiosity? another solution would be to get out more and mix with your community (that's everyone, not a personal YOU!). an insular approach to life is almost to create problems. incidentally, if you live in a wealthy society there shouldn't really be major issues about learning to read vs criminal incarceration. i find the biblical connection a tad spurious. the xtian god has always been abit lax on those sort of points depending on what was going on at the time, as i recall. i'm sure fjots will have an apt and perky response to that comment - joy. anyway we're wanering off topic again so will shutup. Moridin - An excellent point well made. to add to your comments it's human selfishness for every modern convenience today at the expense of the poor buggers who come after us. i've seen major changes in lifestyle in my own short span. city's that once were reasonably free from cars are clogged with them, pollution to heavy to cycle to work or uni etc., people who want to be 'green' are forced to drive for the good of their health - ironic really. living in acity, i don't need a car. i walk to work, but could easily catch a bus or cycle depending where in the city i was based. most of my local friends are, strangely, local, so that's not a problem. to walk to a friend's house that takes half to threequaters of an hour is normal - or i could cycle. i'm probably going to brighton this weekend (gay capital of england and super fab to visit - so vibrant) so will catch a train or a bus. it takes a bit longer than driving but it's ok. at least there's one less car on the road. different matter when living in a rural area admittedly - but then if people who genuinely needed cars only owned them there'd not be that many at all. Greadius - you probably don't remember Greenham Common. the problem is that i don't want to be exposed to another arms race with all the associated fear and palm sweating that goes along with it. we live at the moment in a pretty peaceful time. yes, there are still some dodgy areas in the world. frankly most of the time these are local concerns and problems and are another issue. but we were happily moving away from the mad politics of the last century into a more let's chat sort of moment. if bush gets his way that will stop. and i really don't want to go back there. it was very very frightening. i just want to turn the question around and ask 'why does he think it's a good idea'? |
|
|
06-20-2001, 05:52 PM
|
#132 |
|
Manshoon
Join Date: June 18, 2001
Location: England
Posts: 217
|
Charean -
how are my views extreme? which ones exactly? on other topic great. we all need to accept personal responsibilty for the earth.govt's tend to have greedier agenda's. don't recall any reference to big dumb american's. maybe this is your hangup. the point of joining this discussion is to elicit a response from 'individuals', i'm assuming this includes you? Dawnchaser - very valid point and i don't think you're arrogant. in favour of kyoto for simple and selfish reasons of survival. the world won't fall apart if we have to grow less quickly economically, prob v. good thing. |
|
|
|
06-20-2001, 06:18 PM
|
#133 |
|
Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom
 Join Date: March 12, 2001
Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England
Age: 87
Posts: 2,859
|
tracey - when you accidentally post the same thing more than once, go to the 'edit/delete' button at the top of your extra page, and click on it. A 'delete' check box will then appear at the left top above the page. Check it, then click the 'submit reply' box below. This will get rid of the unwanted page.
 ------------------   
|
|
|
|
06-20-2001, 06:43 PM
|
#134 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I understand you did not say retarded...I think my response included both the mentally retarded and the mentally unstable~unstable to the point of no return as a matter of fact. There was a mentally retarded man put to death in Texas just this year or last. I thought that was wrong. As far as I am concerned on the lines of mental health...unless there are extenuating circumstances that create emotional problems in people i.e. prolonged medical illness or terminal illness that makes life harder to cope with or to the extreme of actually being mentally retarded, people can and should help themselves. Those who commit crimes in the name of being disturbed cop out. Schitzophrenia and psychotic behaviours can be treated. People have to be willing to change. There are plenty of documented cases of success. Once twisted does not mean permanently doomed. If you were literally footing the bill for incarcerated murderers I wonder if you would still feel this way after you've seen how much better they live than a large part of the general population...the people who pay for them to remain there. To say "the death sentence places the executioner, by which i mean the people happy to see it happen in the same position as the killer themselves." is not necessarily true. Some of them may think it their duty to society. That does not mean it makes them happy that they do it. I said myself in one of the polls that if I were the person responsible for pulling the switches, I might just have to rethink my views on the death penalty...having thought about it in my conversations with you I have come to the conclusion that if I felt it was my duty, I'd not have a problem with it, but alas, it is not my calling in this life. Gun laws should not take the right to protect ourselves out of our hands. Laws on incarceration should change. If people knew the punishment would fit the crime, perhaps they would be less willing to commit them. I seriously doubt that if you annoy someone and they in turn blow your head off that it was accidental. People who own firearms should keep them stored responsibly. People who don't and their child dies or kills other children should be prosecuted as if they themselves had pulled the trigger. There is a thing called responsibility that adults are expected to live by. That is why we seperate them from juveniles. Wealthy society on a whole does not mean that people do not suffer. Take a look around in your own neighborhood, your own city and tell me everything is peachy, that no one suffers. I don't think you can and be telling the truth at the same time. The biblical reference came from the Jewish God...the Old Testament. Christians have quite a different viewpoint on the whole concept of living. For you to call it false however is not for me to call you on or judge you for. Lastly, I don't think my opinion is cold blooded at all. In the end though, it is not for you to judge or condemn me for my opinions, views and beliefs. But you are right in that this is totally off topic. I would not even be in this thread had you not asked me personally to converse with you and I would prefer not to have to argue round in circles with you about the way I feel vs the way you feel. We both made our points.   Moni ------------------  [This message has been edited by Moni (edited 06-20-2001).] |
|
|
06-20-2001, 06:56 PM
|
#135 | |
|
Ninja Storm Shadow
 Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
Please relay the informantion that NASA has the capabilities to filter out the natural co2 emittions from the man made ones? How can they tell on the mulecular level from approx. 26,000 miles (I may be wrong on the miles of a geo-cinreious sp? orbit) the differance between the atoms? Where does the 95% come from? How can scientists know what the max. co2-o2 capabilities of the earth are? Since most of the oxygen is produced in the ocean (70%-75% of earth's surface if I remember correctly) by plankton. Can not one more plankton grow naturaly to produce more oxygen? How about two more plankton? Three? (I can nickle and dime you to death until we reach enough plankton to compensate) What is the growth rate of plankton? Yes, I am being sarcastic but these are the things that must be answered before I'll buy the full glass exanple that you used. ------------------  "the memories of a man in his old age, are deeds of a man in his prime" |
|
|
|
|
06-20-2001, 07:53 PM
|
#136 |
|
Hathor
 Join Date: March 6, 2001
Location: Waxahachie, TX
Age: 60
Posts: 2,201
|
This is where we are legally at this time:
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress 98-349: Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions About the Kyoto Protocol (David M. Ackerman Legislative Attoroney American Law Division ) Updated January 10, 2001 Summary On November 12, 1998, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol had been concluded a year earlier (on December 10, 1997) by delegates from 161 nations and sets binding targets for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases by developed nations. It is not yet in effect internationally and cannot be legally binding on the U.S. unless and until the Senate gives its advice and consent. Nonetheless, signature by the U.S. does impose an obligation on the U.S. to refrain from actions that would undermine the Protocol's object and purpose. That obligation is not the same as implementing the Protocol, and there does not appear to be any legal basis for implementing the Protocol provisionally pending its ratification. Congress can, however, pursuant to its own constitutional authority, adopt measures which parallel or support the obligations of the Protocol. This report addresses each of these legal issues. It will be updated as events warrant. The rest is here: http://www.cnie.org/NLE/clim-15.html ------------------  Defender for the Light - Goodness knows there is a lot of Dark out there!! - Where are my matches?!? Wandering Soul - Finding my life's calling is Bodhisattva You are what your deep driving desire is; As your deep driving desire is, so is your will; As your will is so is your deed; As your deed is so is your destiny. The Upanishads |
|
|
|
06-20-2001, 08:13 PM
|
#137 | |
|
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
What is the limit of CO2? How was the figure reached? Since it is ok to question scienitfic labs that are funded by the Oil industry. Who funded this study? What is their agenda? I know I'm being sarcastic again, I just can't buy the eviromentlist agenda and the chicken little menality that everthing man does will cause the distruction of the earth. As I said in your earlier thread in the poll section (sorry I don't know how to make those niffty links) we must be very sure of the science. In the early 70's the world was going to be dead by 1984! or that was the line that spued forth (sorry I couldn't resist it was the evil conservative capitalist in me) by the envros. I'm sure that given enough time a study refutting the one in the show you saw could be found. And to be intellectuly honest I would have to ask what their agenda was. As well how did they reach their conclusions. If I remember correctly it was the pre-cambium(SP?) kill-off. Or the one before that when oxygen was actually a poison in the atmosphere to all life on the earth. CO2 was the life giving gas not O2. (Back from a quick dinner) Come to think of it, I believe it was earlier than Pre-Cambium, All those ium, ary, and sic periods get kinda jumbled up in the old nogg'n. It was the period right before animal life begain on the land, and it was the oceans( if my memory serves me right) that were aborbing the CO2 not plant life. It would be interesting to know what the absorbtion level of life is vs. water is? ------------------ "the memories of a man in his old age, are deeds of a man in his prime" [This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 06-21-2001).] |
|
|
|
|
06-20-2001, 11:27 PM
|
#138 |
|
The Magister
 Join Date: March 10, 2001
Location: Brazil, IN USA
Age: 55
Posts: 126
|
Well, Charean, it sounds to me that the author is saying that we should abandon our Constitution and go for ratification since all other nations do it that way.
We don't do it that way. US Constitution "Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Article 2 section two, of the poweres of the executive branch." http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html Sorry, but I don't buy his argument that the senate is bound to ratify it since we signed it. The President at the time of signing (Bill Clinton), droped the ball by not getting the Senate approval. He only needed 2/3 of attending senators when he presents it to pass. Problem is he didn't try. Then the Senate passed the other rulling while this one was being left on the desk. This treaty was then passed to Bush and he had to decied if it was even worth introducing if he can't get it passed. Sheesh, why do people get upset that we have a 3 part government? The framers of the constition did it to ensure we have no branch or person with too much power. That reason is also why I have to disagree with Vienna Law conventions, we can't and won't make it so we can have the executive branch sign a treaty and it is law (not with out senate approval and judical review). Maybe I sound a bit peeved, but screwing with the Constitution is something I don't really care for. No matter how high and mighty and noble your cause is, we do it the right way, or we don't do it. [edited since late night posting makes me get "ti*" fer brain bet we would be real popular with a system of that ][This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 06-21-2001).] |
|
|
|
06-21-2001, 03:43 AM
|
#139 |
|
Horus - Egyptian Sky God
 Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: Tacoma, WA, U.S.A.
Age: 40
Posts: 2,615
|
Constitution
------------------   BOW TO THE BISCUIT KING AND HIS THRONE OF SCONE!!! |
|
|
|
06-21-2001, 01:27 PM
|
#140 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Jimbo, greenhouse politics have long blendid exageration and deception. Although I feel it is ineviteable, politicians everywhere treat it like this also. Anything else would look bad on the public image. But the same polititians won't do anything for the steep increases in energy costs.I do feel that Bush has been more honest in this debate thow. More honesty than Clinton ever shed on the subject.Because this message is unwanted, they dont deliver it. People boast that their countrys have done better,and America reflects a unwilling attitude. Through 1998, only 3 countrys had reduced their emissions. The shutdown of inefficient and heavy polluting factorys, North Sea propelled a shift from coal to gas and slow population combined with economic growth helps Europe comply with the Kyoto.The European Union's population is projected to rise 6% compared to a 20% U.S. increase. Some country's got emission targets well above their needs. So "emission tradeing" isn't going to work either. There is the natural stalemate..
I really like the alcohol theory! We need the Hybrids. Do you know of any that have these features? It's hard to see how the world will now deal with -reduceing emissions over power needs.Thank you ALL for your reponses! Conan ------------------  [This message has been edited by Conan (edited 06-21-2001).] |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Bush Administration on funding | Harkoliar | General Discussion | 14 | 02-16-2005 05:28 PM |
| The true face of the Bush administration. | Dreamer128 | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 6 | 03-01-2004 04:31 AM |
| Is the US Bush Administration Un-Patriotic?? | Timber Loftis | General Discussion | 17 | 07-31-2003 06:51 PM |
| Bush administration new words | Desdicado | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 1 | 07-08-2003 11:31 PM |
| Bush Administration an Ecological Disaster? | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 43 | 04-23-2003 06:38 PM |
