Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (2238)	4/6/2001 7:29:34 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I suppose that you could call pointing out flawed logic, misleading representation of the facts and the use of manipulative language to be nitpicking. I certainly did not overlook that paragraph you cited either and responded to it. It used a logic that was fundamentally flawed. Why set the premise that nothing will be done for the next decade as the basis for proof that nothing should be done for the next decade? That point in itself should have been sufficient to to discard the paragraph you have chose to requote as the crucial part. Perhaps you need a second point of flaw. What I neglected to add was a comment on the author's premise of continued increases [in growth and CO2 emissions] into the next decade at the same rate as the past decade. I think everyone should be aware that there is an economic slowdown that is occurring now. So even the premise of continual economic growth at the same rate is quite simply incorrect. If Kyoto means destroying the US economy- -which it apparently does- There is nothing that is apparent other than an unsubstantiated vague claim based on false premises and false logic. There are two major logic flaws [referred to above] in the argument that lead to a destruction of the economy; yet you cling to the argument Sullivan offers as if it's apparent! Notice: If you wish to repeat the destroying the US economy phrase again, I'll ask you to quantify it with source. It is a punitive treaty aimed at the industrialized west and justly deserves the death it will receive. Alternatively, it is a treaty in which the industrialized countries take responsibility for the green house emissions that they have pumped into the atmosphere over the last century. The US, in particular, with 6% of the world's population contributes 25% of the CO2 emmissions. But we don't want to acknowledge that. We prefer to characterize it as a punitive treaty. Whatever happened to the conservative phrase of taking responsibility for one's actions? Is the message really, take responsibility for your actions only when it is to your benefit to do so? I think your fixation on my "American Empire" phrase is getting in the way of recognition of reality. My fixation?! I think you're the one that started the American Empire phrase and followed it up with an implication of a global conspiracy to destroy the US economy! [You may recall the article you offered...cites that international treaties are worthless because no one abides by them, yet we have a silent conspiracy to destroy the US economy!] But above that, my responses to your American Empire and global conspiracy had no bearing or influence on Mr. Sullivan's editorial. And I believe that the construction of my response made that quite clear. Silent global conspiracies? And you question my grasp of reality. I'm certain that our discussion on this thread will have no bearing on the approval or disapproval of the Kyoto protocol. And you may in fact be correct that the Kyoto protocol will never be approved. But if you wish to offer Mr. Sullivan's tripe as a justification for it's rejection, then you should expect to get a discourse on it's value. If I've made an error in my partial rebuttal of Mr. Sullivan's piece, I'd seriously entertain it as long as there was some supporting rationale. But your response does nothing more than what Mr. Sullivan's does. It take the typical conservative approach to debate, make it up as you go along; completely ignore the counter arguments and redefine them in a pejorative, e.g. nitpicking. jttmab