BTP, you truely are an idiot.

A more nonsensical post I have never read. Well there was one. It was by one of the many 12 year olds with a blog on MSN spaces.

It is listed under satire...or doesn't that matter?

No, stupidity is not satire.

Kyoto will do nothing to stop global warming and will cost billions per year. It is a good thing that the Senate (note, not Bush) voted unanimously to reject the treaty. It was designed to wreck our economy and to allow China, India, Viet Nam and the like to continue polluting. We have reduced pollution...let them do the same. (If you didn't know, air and water quality have improved under Bush.)

Satire is usually at least mildly amusing. All this post displays is a certain amount of bigotry and a great deal of ignorance.

Dave

Matt writes: "If you didn't know, air and water quality have improved under Bush."

Reply: Matt, can you give me a source for that? I honestly am interested and not simply picking nits.

Ron

Marc: "If you didn't know, air and water quality have improved under Bush."


NOTE:

(from Karl Rove's Guide to GOP Euphemisms)

"Water" = oil company profits
"Air" = federal taxes paid by the ultra-rich

I've had several econ professors... who were really great people. Down to earth, been in business.... the whole nine yards... OTW not bound to academia, who basically agreed that the US was bearing the brunt of the accords. While the rest of the world was left to business as usual...

They agreed that core changes to the accord would have to be made... it was in our best interest.

Economics sharpens the mind by narrowing it, much as law school is often said to do.

Marc, Matt and Dave, are you saying that the capacity for weapons of mass destruction is NOT grounds for a war?

Clearly you need to spend more time listening to our President. I sometimes think you guys must hate America because you are so reluctant to actually listen to the words of our President. You seem to prefer to rely on what you think he meant to say or perhaps what you would have said if you were him.

The President said we went to war because Iraq had the "capacity" to make weapons of mass destruction. That's it. If it's stupid and ridiculous, well thats kind of the penalty of trying to get satire out of Bush's speechs.

But I think the real problem is that I would NOT call this satire myself. What we need for blogcritics is a SARCASM label. Satire does imply some humor but there's not much funny about this weak ass excuse to send our soldiers to die, sarcasm does not require humor.

Matt sez...
*(If you didn't know, air and water quality have improved under Bush.)*

i would like to see the source of that statement as well...it's the exact opposite of everything i have read, as well as my own experience up here in Maine

i am legitamately curious...i do hope it wasn't written by the same guy that came up with the whole "greenhouse" gases report...left when he was busted, and is now a lobbyist

if you have legit evidence..please share

thanks

Excelsior!

"Economics sharpens the mind by narrowing it, much as law school is often said to do"

Um whatever... there is a reality issue here. And the reality is.... oh wise one? That we should ignore economics, law, and other constructs that directly affect our lives... and have directly affected civilization for a millenia?

I contend that, while I don't necessarily agree with theory or many laws... they both have impact on society and have held sway. Further, I forecast that the impacts of economic theory and law will still be around long after our passing from this life.

The point I was originally making was that, the profs, who study affects of economic events, postulated that the U.S. in signing the treaty would be bearing the brunt of the imposed restrictions.

While other countries who are gaining industrial strength would be exempt. Since the U.S. is waning in industrial capacity and will continue to move heavy industry off shore. Corporations will move heavy industry to countries NOT affected by Kyoto. Which really doesn't fix anything. It just moves it. A shell game. Why would we sign anything that displaces polluting industry from one country bound by treaty... to other countries not bound by the same restrictions...

What is green about that Vic?

Does that help you understand the narrowness of the situation.... in actuality it is rather focused, when in fact it should be a broadbased treaty which would squelch corporate strategies to that effect.