The moron sinks to new depths
Mar 6th 2004, 4:50 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Patrick
On a global scale you have to say Bush is more dangerous than Saddam. Saddam only killed his own and invaded his neighbors, Bush is killing the planet and invading countries all over the place.
Bush is insane and thinks he is at war, with who I don't know. Both Bush and Saddam keep their people in line by lies, deceit and fear.
At least you know that Saddam is just evil, but Bush is evil and stupid which makes him unpredictable - far worse.
Patrick
On a global scale you have to say Bush is more dangerous than Saddam. Saddam only killed his own and invaded his neighbors, Bush is killing the planet and invading countries all over the place.
Bush is insane and thinks he is at war, with who I don't know. Both Bush and Saddam keep their people in line by lies, deceit and fear.
At least you know that Saddam is just evil, but Bush is evil and stupid which makes him unpredictable - far worse.
Patrick
Last edited by Patent Attorney; Mar 6th 2004 at 4:54 pm.
Mar 6th 2004, 5:06 pm
#17
Through the square window
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,723
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Patent Attorney
In what way exactly is Bush "killing the planet"?
In what way exactly is Bush "killing the planet"?
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
Mar 6th 2004, 5:23 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Webbie
His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
Last edited by Patent Attorney; Mar 6th 2004 at 7:39 pm.
Mar 6th 2004, 5:59 pm
#19
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Webbie
His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
Could be worse.
We could have Ashcroft as President............
Mar 6th 2004, 6:23 pm
#20
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 961
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Steve1962
It seems to me Saddam was pretty stupid too. He could have allowed UN weapons inspectors free access throughout Iraq and it turns out they would not have found any WMD. Bush would have had no pretext (tho he may have invented another one) for his war.
Steve
It seems to me Saddam was pretty stupid too. He could have allowed UN weapons inspectors free access throughout Iraq and it turns out they would not have found any WMD. Bush would have had no pretext (tho he may have invented another one) for his war.
Steve
Mar 6th 2004, 6:26 pm
#21
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 961
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Webbie
His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Allowing oil companies to drill in protected areas of Alaska.
Taking backhanders to allow companies to break the emissions rules.
Letting the companies who's emmissions are under the allowance to sell their "emission credits" to other companies who are over.
Spewing all that shit out of his mouth.
These are some off the top of my head, I'm sure I can find a long list.
(And why am I not surprised to find that you are defending him)
Mar 6th 2004, 7:05 pm
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by effi
Correct, he has given the go ahead to invade the only natural rain forest left in the US, a protected park in Alaska (cannot remember the name of it). This place is only accessible right now by helicopter. He plans to build roads into it so that the trees can be cut down and dragged out.
Correct, he has given the go ahead to invade the only natural rain forest left in the US, a protected park in Alaska (cannot remember the name of it). This place is only accessible right now by helicopter. He plans to build roads into it so that the trees can be cut down and dragged out.
How much oil is drilled in Alaska verses say Siberia or Russia?
How much wood is exported from Alaska verses its neighbor Canada?
As to Kyoto ... Robert Byrd, former Senate Democrat leader, told the President of the day (then President Clinton) that Senate would not ratify Kyoto. That the consensus of the Senate… remains that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol until and unless that agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing country parties within the same compliance period . . . The Senate's position has not changed since the resolution was passed. That condition has not yet been met, said Byrd.
Without Congress ratifying Kyoto, the Presidents (Clinton/Bush) views about Kyoto were academic. Byrd (Democrat) actually urged Clinton not to sign and also said he had no authority to sign up for Kyoto. The US Constitution is quite clear: Congress ratifies, not the President of the day regardless of their views or desire to sign a treaty. A treaty signed by the President without approval from Congress is unconstitutional and would be struck down on challenge in the Federal Court system for being unconstitutional. In addition, all Congress has to do to nullify a treaty that it no longer wants is pass new legislation that speaks to the contents of the treaty, then the new federal legislation supersedes the treaty, the treaty is dead in the water even if Congress previously ratified and the President signed - a new federal law on the same subject matter will kill a treaty, so says the US Constitution, the "highest law in the land" (one of the questions that sometimes comes up in the US citizenship interview).
So it would not have mattered if a President had signed in light of Congress refusing to ratify/approve Kyoto. A President is limited by Congress and the Federal Court system. The President is not all powerful. He may want something, but without Congress backing him by passing legislation that the President wants he is weak. It is Congress that legislates, not the President of the day.
Last edited by Patent Attorney; Mar 6th 2004 at 7:24 pm.
Mar 7th 2004, 3:15 pm
#23
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Edmonton.
Posts: 1,043
Have you guys seen the finalists from the move on competition?
If not - have a look at them here.
Bush in 30 Seconds
It would appear they are having difficulty getting these ads on the air.
News Link
It will be a real shame if they don't make it as they are truly inspired. Childs Pay in particular is fantastic, as is Polygraph. Imagine and In My Country are great too, I doubt they will go down well at all with the Bush supporters and you can see why someone is trying very hard to keep them off the air.
We surely wouldn't want the American people to actually find out what is happening in their country would we?
If you get the time, check out the ads. You can check out Move On
for the lastest news of the campaign.
If not - have a look at them here.
Bush in 30 Seconds
It would appear they are having difficulty getting these ads on the air.
News Link
It will be a real shame if they don't make it as they are truly inspired. Childs Pay in particular is fantastic, as is Polygraph. Imagine and In My Country are great too, I doubt they will go down well at all with the Bush supporters and you can see why someone is trying very hard to keep them off the air.
We surely wouldn't want the American people to actually find out what is happening in their country would we?
If you get the time, check out the ads. You can check out Move On
for the lastest news of the campaign.
Mar 7th 2004, 4:22 pm
#24
Pagan Sex God
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
You misunderstood PA, when I was talking about a moron I wasn't talking about you!
FYI, this has nothing to do with congress, even though they rejected it 95-0 Clinton still pushed ahead. It was Bush and Bush alone that rejected it.
The president can override any decision congress makes.
You I just find annoying, you probably like bush because he is arrogant
Patrick
FYI, this has nothing to do with congress, even though they rejected it 95-0 Clinton still pushed ahead. It was Bush and Bush alone that rejected it.
The president can override any decision congress makes.
You I just find annoying, you probably like bush because he is arrogant
Patrick
Originally posted by Patent Attorney
How much oil is drilled in Alaska verses say Siberia or Russia?
How much wood is exported from Alaska verses its neighbor Canada?
As to Kyoto ... Robert Byrd, former Senate Democrat leader, told the President of the day (then President Clinton) that Senate would not ratify Kyoto. That the consensus of the Senate… remains that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol until and unless that agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing country parties within the same compliance period . . . The Senate's position has not changed since the resolution was passed. That condition has not yet been met, said Byrd.
Without Congress ratifying Kyoto, the Presidents (Clinton/Bush) views about Kyoto were academic. Byrd (Democrat) actually urged Clinton not to sign and also said he had no authority to sign up for Kyoto. The US Constitution is quite clear: Congress ratifies, not the President of the day regardless of their views or desire to sign a treaty. A treaty signed by the President without approval from Congress is unconstitutional and would be struck down on challenge in the Federal Court system for being unconstitutional. In addition, all Congress has to do to nullify a treaty that it no longer wants is pass new legislation that speaks to the contents of the treaty, then the new federal legislation supersedes the treaty, the treaty is dead in the water even if Congress previously ratified and the President signed - a new federal law on the same subject matter will kill a treaty, so says the US Constitution, the "highest law in the land" (one of the questions that sometimes comes up in the US citizenship interview).
So it would not have mattered if a President had signed in light of Congress refusing to ratify/approve Kyoto. A President is limited by Congress and the Federal Court system. The President is not all powerful. He may want something, but without Congress backing him by passing legislation that the President wants he is weak. It is Congress that legislates, not the President of the day.
How much oil is drilled in Alaska verses say Siberia or Russia?
How much wood is exported from Alaska verses its neighbor Canada?
As to Kyoto ... Robert Byrd, former Senate Democrat leader, told the President of the day (then President Clinton) that Senate would not ratify Kyoto. That the consensus of the Senate… remains that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol until and unless that agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing country parties within the same compliance period . . . The Senate's position has not changed since the resolution was passed. That condition has not yet been met, said Byrd.
Without Congress ratifying Kyoto, the Presidents (Clinton/Bush) views about Kyoto were academic. Byrd (Democrat) actually urged Clinton not to sign and also said he had no authority to sign up for Kyoto. The US Constitution is quite clear: Congress ratifies, not the President of the day regardless of their views or desire to sign a treaty. A treaty signed by the President without approval from Congress is unconstitutional and would be struck down on challenge in the Federal Court system for being unconstitutional. In addition, all Congress has to do to nullify a treaty that it no longer wants is pass new legislation that speaks to the contents of the treaty, then the new federal legislation supersedes the treaty, the treaty is dead in the water even if Congress previously ratified and the President signed - a new federal law on the same subject matter will kill a treaty, so says the US Constitution, the "highest law in the land" (one of the questions that sometimes comes up in the US citizenship interview).
So it would not have mattered if a President had signed in light of Congress refusing to ratify/approve Kyoto. A President is limited by Congress and the Federal Court system. The President is not all powerful. He may want something, but without Congress backing him by passing legislation that the President wants he is weak. It is Congress that legislates, not the President of the day.
Mar 7th 2004, 4:58 pm
#25
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Harbor Springs, Michigan *again*
Posts: 2,340
Originally posted by nxylas
Yes, but Saddam needed the threat of WMDs in order to seem like a big man to his own people.
Yes, but Saddam needed the threat of WMDs in order to seem like a big man to his own people.
Jan
Mar 7th 2004, 5:03 pm
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Your claim that "this has nothing to do with congress" is wrong on its face. It is a matter of the US Constitution that Congress holds the power to ratify a treaty and not the President. Congress can assign the power to ratify a treaty to a President, but this is unusual and anyway moot in the context of Kyoto because Congress refused to ratify Kyoto.
If Congress wanted Kyoto incorporated into US law then Congress has the power to do that, even over a Presidential veto. A Congressman could propose legislation that mirrors Kyoto and Congress would have to amass a sufficient number of votes to make it law.
Anyone know if Russia also refused to ratify Kyoto?
If Congress wanted Kyoto incorporated into US law then Congress has the power to do that, even over a Presidential veto. A Congressman could propose legislation that mirrors Kyoto and Congress would have to amass a sufficient number of votes to make it law.
Anyone know if Russia also refused to ratify Kyoto?
Originally posted by Patrick
You misunderstood PA, when I was talking about a moron I wasn't talking about you!
FYI, this has nothing to do with congress, even though they rejected it 95-0 Clinton still pushed ahead. It was Bush and Bush alone that rejected it.
The president can override any decision congress makes.
You I just find annoying, you probably like bush because he is arrogant
Patrick
You misunderstood PA, when I was talking about a moron I wasn't talking about you!
FYI, this has nothing to do with congress, even though they rejected it 95-0 Clinton still pushed ahead. It was Bush and Bush alone that rejected it.
The president can override any decision congress makes.
You I just find annoying, you probably like bush because he is arrogant
Patrick
Last edited by Patent Attorney; Mar 7th 2004 at 5:20 pm.
Mar 7th 2004, 6:34 pm
#27
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Last I was aware Russia had indeed refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in it's present form. It was felt that it placed "significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia."
Or something like that.
Btw, I believe that the US's largest supplier of crude oil is Canada.
Or something like that.
Btw, I believe that the US's largest supplier of crude oil is Canada.
Mar 7th 2004, 6:50 pm
#28
Howling at the Moon
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Incline Village, NV
Posts: 3,742
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by effi
Correct, he has given the go ahead to invade the only natural rain forest left in the US, a protected park in Alaska (cannot remember the name of it). This place is only accessible right now by helicopter. He plans to build roads into it so that the trees can be cut down and dragged out.
Correct, he has given the go ahead to invade the only natural rain forest left in the US, a protected park in Alaska (cannot remember the name of it). This place is only accessible right now by helicopter. He plans to build roads into it so that the trees can be cut down and dragged out.
The only natural rainforest in the US?
What about the Olympic Penninsula rainforest in WA for a start?
Only half of the world's coastal temperate rainforests still stand. Half of those that remain are in North America.
Mar 7th 2004, 11:42 pm
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The moron sinks to new depths
Originally posted by Patrick
You misunderstood PA, when I was talking about a moron I wasn't talking about you!
FYI, this has nothing to do with congress, even though they rejected it 95-0 Clinton still pushed ahead. It was Bush and Bush alone that rejected it.
The president can override any decision congress makes.
You I just find annoying, you probably like bush because he is arrogant
Patrick
You misunderstood PA, when I was talking about a moron I wasn't talking about you!
FYI, this has nothing to do with congress, even though they rejected it 95-0 Clinton still pushed ahead. It was Bush and Bush alone that rejected it.
The president can override any decision congress makes.
You I just find annoying, you probably like bush because he is arrogant
Patrick
Mar 8th 2004, 12:53 am
#30
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Northwestern University, Chicago
Posts: 58
It's hard to argue with people who are ignorant of US laws. No offense, but it is all too easy to simplify things down to saying "Bush sucks" and "Look at what Bush is doing." Bush bashing is almost an art of being willingly ignorant of many US laws.
And BTW I would love to know how many people have ever been to the savannahs in Alaska that is the area where we would drill oil. It's HARDLY a "wildlife" haven. It's in the middle of the most barren, cold, tree-less area in North America. But for some reason the wacko environmentalist answer is to have some other country have the problems and produce our oil, huh? What's wrong with being self-sufficient and getting our fuel from the most barren and tree-less land we have?
And I'm willing to bet those who cry "but Bush didn't support Kyoto!" have no idea what Kyoto really is and what it really entails.
And BTW I would love to know how many people have ever been to the savannahs in Alaska that is the area where we would drill oil. It's HARDLY a "wildlife" haven. It's in the middle of the most barren, cold, tree-less area in North America. But for some reason the wacko environmentalist answer is to have some other country have the problems and produce our oil, huh? What's wrong with being self-sufficient and getting our fuel from the most barren and tree-less land we have?
And I'm willing to bet those who cry "but Bush didn't support Kyoto!" have no idea what Kyoto really is and what it really entails.