Does anyone still believe this guy?

[QUOTE=Telemakhos]We don't know if this is true or not. It could be a normal warming period or it could be humans. There is not enough science to prove either argument.[/QUOTE]

I "think" it's been proven that one of the largest villians in the global warming game is Cow flatulence... No joke.

If I find a link later I'll post it. But I'm almost positive I read that somewhere.

[QUOTE=pank]I "think" it's been proven that one of the largest villians in the global warming game is Cow flatulence... No joke. [/QUOTE]

This is true, cows are horrid for the environment. But I think people are much too naive about "global warming". Maybe a big killer hole isn't opening up above us, but acid rain, raw sewage, toxic waste, basic every day pollution etc...all have to be of cause of concern to people. I don't like to think about it, but lets take a farm located on the outskirts of a city. Now this farm grows vegetables and sells them to local markets. Let's also note that this city produces the average amount of pollution that a city makes. Do you really want the rain that is contaminated by the day to day pollutants of this city to be the same rain that makes your veggies grow? I don't like the idea. But that is just one small example. There is no denying the pollution all around us. I have to take a ferry to get to the mainland here in BC. Now, Vancouver is named as one of the top 5 most beautiful cities in the world. You know what I see when I get within 10Km of the ferry terminal? A huge blanket of smog. Same with say...Los Angeles. How much of a bragging right is it when you can claim the worlds most beautiful sunsets because of the pollution?

The world is getting smaller and smaller. Those who don't live in a city and don't see the immediate effects turn a blind eye to the whole idea. Freedom to drive a big block V8 engine is one thing. But the wisdom to see into the future is so much more.

If America could lead by example, like I think they think they do, then things could be changed.

I encourage all of you to do some investigation into things like LED's and the benifits of hemp (no, I am not a hippy) LED's would drastically change the power consumption of the world, which would be a monumental head start.

Yes, and there haven't been any past presidents who have done anything about engine sizes either - why are you so passionate about your dislike for Bush? Are you just anti-American, plain and simple?

http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/01/01102002/ap_46085.asp
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/scrappngv.html
Just google for it:
http://www.google.fi/search?q=%22mileage%22+bush&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=fi&lr=

you are just spewing out textbook-insults. We do not benefit the rich!

"insults"? Who am I insulting other than George Walker Bush? "We"?
About the taxing; http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030110.html etc etc, just google it up.

You simply list off the typical attacks!

There is a reason these "attacks" are typical. I can put a different kind of hat on for you, if that'll make me more "hip" with the MTV brainwashed youth.

Yes, campaigning is an important part of our elections - after all, we are an enormous country, and flights to each one of those states, media in each, etc, etc - it adds up.

Yes, jetfuel costs that much. Please.
I wasn't talking about paying for something like this, I was talking about having the privilege of having family, name, and a place in society where you can get away with just about anything. That's money, in your case, but with a bit more history than what you're talking about with this Lieberman guy.
And you have have looked into why your dear president is what he is today, haven't you? He wasn't fairly elected.

Who says we're keeping the voters in the dark? Care to tell me exactly what you mean, here? You're being very vague and unspecific.

Because your mainstream media either are owned by one party or another (more or less directly), and will not give anything close to a unbiased view of anything. Besides, you'll still end up with a president from TWO parties. Wow, great range of choice there! Democracy my ass.

Where did i mention "Iraq"?

So what country were you talking about?

Quite frankly, reading your posts concerning America is much like reading a book on childcare written by an author who has yet to have a child.

My posts are concerning the Bush administration, not America as a country. You are so blinded with implanted patriotism that you can't see the difference of the two.
And about that childcare comparison, it's like you're expecting me to run for the president for the US. You think I'm going to do that? If you have people this incompentent running to be your leader, with that amount of people, it's nothing short from sad.

We didn't. Please, go ahead and try and prove me wrong here - quote President Bush saying that we defend Israel because it is a Biblically sound choice.

It was Malibu who said it while it was concerning Israel. I was talking about what your president is saying in general. "God bless america", and "god willing" etc etc.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/theologian.shtml <--- more on that stuff.

Again, more silly content with no proof to back up your claims. What do you mean? Care to explain?

Sure;
For one (I can't believe we're going through this again), what were his reasoning for invading Iraq?
Yup, the weapons of mass destruction. Well, there were none. When you found this out, how did you react? Please, reply honestly to that.
"After" the war, they're going to "rebuild" Iraq. What does your master do? Ban all countries that didn't support his little crusade from bidding into the deal. In fact, he gave the largest jobs to his buddies! Yes, those'd be the rich ones. How much more blind can you get? What does it take for you to get angry at your leadership if this all is still good in your book?

We went in to Iraq to enforce UN law, not to break it.

And you do this by violating them?

Look, don't talk about UN resolutions while backing your administration. Google up a country called "USA" and another by the name of "Israel", compare their actions and weapon programs with the same UN resolutions and then reply again.

[QUOTE=PaavoPerkele]http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/01/01102002/ap_46085.asp[/quote]

Let's stop right here for a second - did you even read this article? You do realize that this is arguing MY case, right? It is going over how Bush is discouraging large, gas-guzzling vehicles for the sake of newer hydrogen fuel cell technology.

That, Paavo, is a huge knock on your integrity. You're basically debating yourself now by posting articles such as this one, REFUTING what you yourself are saying. How do you ever expect to prove a point if you just keep copy-pasting a bunch of Google articles?

About the taxing; http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030110.html etc etc, just google it up.

ANSWER MY QUESTION. Have you ever actually seen an American income tax chart, such as the one i posted? I gave you a solid figure - the "rich" are taxed by a hard 35% - how does this benefit them, as you said it did. Heck, the "poor" aren't even taxed! Give me a straight answer, i am not going to read every link you post. If you cannot explain to me in your own words how a 35% income tax benefits a certain tax bracket, you should not be engaging in a debate concerning income taxes. It's that simple - you obviously do not have the knowledge or reasons yourself since you keep posting link after link, and you should therefore not debate such things.

We could just as easily be arguing over mathematics, and i could conveniently post several links that show a certain theory without even having to know it. This is the game you are playing, and you know fully well that you are not prepared to take such an argument as this one upon yourself.

There is a reason these "attacks" are typical. I can put a different kind of hat on for you, if that'll make me more "hip" with the MTV brainwashed youth.

The MTV brainwashed youth actually oppose Bush, America, and pretty much anything else political or patriotic. Just ask any American on these forums.

Yes, jetfuel costs that much. Please.

Commercials are very expensive - surely even a man like yourself can come to realize that simple truth - media is an expensive thing, and each candidate must pay networks to play their campaign ads. I did not say jetfuel, i said flights, which are significantly more expensive. I also mentioned media, and the very comprehensible "etc, etc." HERE is a full list of figures that explain where every penny of the 2000 campaign went.

And you have have looked into why your dear president is what he is today, haven't you? He wasn't fairly elected.

*Sigh*.. must i explain to you how our electoral college works in this nation? Have you ever even heard that term before?

Because your mainstream media either are owned by one party or another (more or less directly), and will not give anything close to a unbiased view of anything. Besides, you'll still end up with a president from TWO parties. Wow, great range of choice there! Democracy my ass.

How does that compromise the integrity of a democracy? The people always choose those two parties - there are many, many more. I could supply you with a list of all known parties in the US if you wish. The people elect candidates of those two main parties - attribute such circumstances to democracy.

It was Malibu who said it while it was concerning Israel. I was talking about what your president is saying in general. "God bless america", and "god willing" etc etc.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/theologian.shtml <--- more on that stuff.

Have you ever been to the United States? Those kind of sayings are everywhere. Indeed, they are even in our pledge of allegiance. Clinton said it, Bush Sr. said it, Reagan said it, etc, etc.

As you said earlier - stick to Bush, not America in general. You are even confusing your own self at this point.

For one (I can't believe we're going through this again), what were his reasoning for invading Iraq?
Yup, the weapons of mass destruction.

WRONG. 17 resolutions were made by the UN Security Council concerning Iraq. Resolution 1441 clearly states:

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

That is why we went into Iraq. They failed to comply with resolution after resolution. They refused to file the reports within 30 days of resolution 687. The issue was not whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction, it was their failure to comply with the UN.

Well, there were none. When you found this out, how did you react? Please, reply honestly to that.

I have yet to find this out, because we are still in Iraq, and facilities are, for the first time, being openly searched now. Saddam disallowed such searches.

And do not question whether or not i become angry at my leadership. I have plenty of issues to be had with the Bush administration, but this debate was never about what problems i had with the President, it was about the issues YOU had with the president.

Look, don't talk about UN resolutions while backing your administration. Google up a country called "USA" and another by the name of "Israel", compare their actions and weapon programs with the same UN resolutions and then reply again.

Yes, we provide weapons to Israel, but none are WMD's. That would be a direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

(Also, please take note that i did indeed use links, but only to cite my source or to provide charts and numbers. I never simply posted a link, as you did, and expected that to be my argument in it's entirety).

Nos.

*Sigh*.. must i explain to you how our electoral college works in this nation? Have you ever even heard that term before?

Your electoral college is whats wrong with your whole "democracy". How can it be a democracy when the people vote for one man, but because Florida has more electoral votes, the other guy wins?

To break it down a bit more for you. When the votes were being proccesed, there were 3 states including Florida that had yet to be counted. You know what your own media was saying? That those last two states, which happened to be small states (I forget which ones), their votes did not matter. Now, without an excuse such as, "well thats the system we have, I like it, it works." can you tell me how that is democracy? When you tell a nation to get out and use your power to vote, that every vote counts, but then turn around and tell *insert small state here* that actually, it doesn't matter if you show up or not, Florida will determine this election, that is a completely flawed system. The people, you, your neighbour, whoever voted for Gore. The majority of Americans voted for Gore. That is democracy. Telling a whole entire state that their vote is worthless, that is not.

And it's not just a matter of how the math works. If Gore had worked harder to win other states may be true to a certain extent, but to completly try and simplfy the voting based on the size and population of a state is ludicris. It needs to be individual. Why even have the popular vote in the first place? It's simply mind boggling how your voting system is.

As well, you are losing a lot of integrity by being so condescending towards Paavo. I was called childish earlier for no reason, yet here you are, try to belittle the man.

Now, without an excuse such as, "well thats the system we have, I like it, it works." can you tell me how that is democracy?

It's not a democracy, because we, as the US, are not a democracy. It DOES work - we are the most successful nation. Give us one reason as to why we should adopt some other system of government if this one has left us with the #1 world economy?

The majority of Americans voted for Gore. That is democracy.

You're right, that is a democracy. America, on the other hand, is not.

It's simply mind boggling how your voting system is

Ah, and it has gotten us so far, hasn't it?

As well, you are losing a lot of integrity by being so condescending towards Paavo. I was called childish earlier for no reason, yet here you are, try to belittle the man.

I mean nothing personal toward Paavo - this is a debate. We have both chosen to engage in the debate, which does not necessarily mean that we will be throwing flowers at each other and giggling (scary thought). When all is said and done, he's still the Paavo i've known on these forums for quite awhile, the friendly Finn who knows the answer to almost every question i ask concerning web design.

I'm pretty sure he feels the same - nothing personal is meant by debating politics. We are both engaging in a battle of arguments, not necessarily ourselves. It's my arguments vs his, not me vs him.

Nos.

Let's stop right here for a second - did you even read this article? You do realize that this is arguing MY case, right? It is going over how Bush is discouraging large, gas-guzzling vehicles for the sake of newer hydrogen fuel cell technology.

I did read it, and it's not proving your case at all.
Do you seriously think that they will let this kind of technology take over the car industry in the near future? Them ending a program that, given, hasn't given much results (due to other greedy a**holes in power), is just buying them time. Precious time to sell their oil. Seriously, if they gave a rats ass about the enviroment, they'd run a TV campaign about how large engines use up too much gas and that even Tommy the Truckfan could get the same amount of BHP from a significally smaller engine. It's weird how the Japanese can tickle 600 BHP from a 2 litre engine, when you need 6 litres for the same power. And we all know US engineers aren't stupid.

ANSWER MY QUESTION. Have you ever actually seen an American income tax chart, such as the one i posted? I gave you a solid figure - the "rich" are taxed by a hard 35% - how does this benefit them, as you said it did. Heck, the "poor" aren't even taxed! Give me a straight answer, i am not going to read every link you post.

"By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent"

(http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm <--- quoted from there.)

And to answer your very relevant (?) question, I have probably never seen "an American income tax chart" like the one you posted. So what?

The MTV brainwashed youth actually oppose Bush, America, and pretty much anything else political or patriotic. Just ask any American on these forums.

Ok, I believe you. I haven't watched MTV in ages. I'm sorry.
It's funny though, that you knot "opposing Bush" with being un-patriotic.

Commercials are very expensive - surely even a man like yourself can come to realize that simple truth - media is an expensive thing, and each candidate must pay networks to play their campaign ads. I did not say jetfuel, i said flights, which are significantly more expensive. I also mentioned media, and the very comprehensible "etc, etc." HERE is a full list of figures that explain where every penny of the 2000 campaign went.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. How come a candidate with good ideas needs to pay money for TV ads to get heard? "and each candidate must pay networks to play their campaign ads" <-- you have no idea how sick that sounds like in my ears. How can the candidates be treated in a fair way if they need craploads of money to get their message across to the public? Why can't you take a tiny bit of the budget to finance a broadcast for all candidates in a fair and equal way? That would be democracy.
Btw, your link doesn't work.

Have you ever been to the United States? Those kind of sayings are everywhere. Indeed, they are even in our pledge of allegiance. Clinton said it, Bush Sr. said it, Reagan said it, etc, etc.

I have been to the US, not very recently though. I've always liked the US, I still do! I'm just very displeased of your current administration. How hard is that to grasp?
"Those kind of sayings are everywhere"...how does that make it better? It's even more provocative that way. And you can't say that Bush is keeping a very low profile on the god-almighty stuff. Mixing religion with politics is a scary thing.

As you said earlier - stick to Bush, not America in general. You are even confusing your own self at this point.

Where did I not stick to Bush?

WRONG.

No, actually, that was his and Blair's reasoning to invade the country.

I have plenty of issues to be had with the Bush administration, but this debate was never about what problems i had with the President, it was about the issues YOU had with the president.

No, actually, I just wanted people to talk openly about what's wrong with the current administration. Feel free to use this thread for your own views on anything, not just trying to prove me wrong.

Yes, we provide weapons to Israel, but none are WMD's.

http://www.mideastfacts.com/resolutions.html <--- You should've attacked Israel long ago. Instead you keep funding them.

Also, please take note that i did indeed use links, but only to cite my source or to provide charts and numbers. I never simply posted a link, as you did, and expected that to be my argument in it's entirety

What else can I do than post links? Of course I can pretend that I know numbers by heart and not give the real source for them.



EDIT:

mean nothing personal toward Paavo - this is a debate. We have both chosen to engage in the debate, which does not necessarily mean that we will be throwing flowers at each other and giggling (scary thought). When all is said and done, he's still the Paavo i've known on these forums for quite awhile, the friendly Finn who knows the answer to almost every question i ask concerning web design.

I'm pretty sure he feels the same - nothing personal is meant by debating politics. We are both engaging in a battle of arguments, not necessarily ourselves. It's my arguments vs his, not me vs him.

True. I do take stuff personally, but only for that moment, and it stays in that moment. (well, unless someone calls me a poohead, then I'm mad!) -___-

*throws a flower on nos and giggles*

Alright, alright, you get the last word . My stance hasn't changed in that i think Bush is still a great American president, and i hope he gets the presidency this year, and i respect, although do not agree to, your choice concerning the current administration.

Well played, that was fun. *Throws flowers into the air* :o

As for what i dislike about the Bush administration - this new immigration policy, have you heard of it? Ever illegal immigrant (an estimated 13 million) currently living in the US will be given a 3 year working visa. This is much like those who choose to legalize marijuana only because it would be dificult to enforce the status quo. Personally, i think a better choice would be to hunt the criminals down and bus them out of our nation, at gun point if need be. Then again, i'm pretty crazy.

Nos.

Paavo = poohead


:D :D :D

It's that time again ....

... where the Earth makes a half precession from the Ice Age ...