It looks like you're reduced to dishing out non-sequitor questions, instead of discussing the issue in a thoughtful way.
I've found that to be pretty common among Democrats. Most, such as yourself, have never really researched the Kyoto Protocols to any degree. But, have instead taken the word of the popular press that it's some sort of panacea of protection for the environment. Then, when presented with the overwhelming evidence that it's not only not a panacea, but is in fact dangerous economically to the health of America. Are unwilling to challenge their assumptions.
Being an engineer, you've probably seen this sort of thing happen quite often when working on a particularly difficult problem. Someone gets locked into a certain way of thinking, then are unwilling to unlock their mental models and challenge the assumptions which originally guided them.
What Bush does or doesn't have planned regarding protecting the environment was never the issue. However, I'll be willing to bet now that we've thrown out this ridiculous charade of an environmental plan, a new one will emerge, which will not only protect more of the environment in real measurable ways, but will do so in a thoughtful realistic manner.
In other words, the adults are now running the store, and we can stop this poppy-cock rhetorical spin so common from the Clinton/Gore administration and get down to business.
Finally, when Bush does present his plan, it will actually pass the Senate, as compared to Clinton/Gore's which went down to a startling 95 vote defeat. |
