Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[lindagarrette]

it would help to look a little deeper into what these organizations actually accomplish.

WTO is a good example of abused power.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Wow, Faith! :cup: 28 hectares!!!! :surprise: Shame on you! :gift:

 

I don't find your points of criticism all that relevant, what's relevant is your footprint, even if you can't choose much differently about some of the things. If you use a lot of electricity you are contributing to the use of resources for producing it.

 

Yeah. I know. (There still isn't a :sheepish: smiley)

 

Still, I don't particulaly like being criticized for choices I can't help but make. And it's a bit of a false choice to say I shouldn't have running water and electricity. You know, I do what I can - within reason. Not really a crictcism of the quiz, but of it's implied solutions. The solution being that we should all live in big cities without electricity or running water and eat organically grown vegetables. I'm not even sure that's possible.

 

The only real criticism I have of the quiz is that it assumes that all productive hectares on earth are currently producing at maximum efficiency, and there is no way to turn "unproductive" hectares into productive ones. Let's say we covered the Sahara Desert in solar cells for instance. By no means could it be considered an agriculturally productive place, but - covered in photovoltaics, it'd make a heck of a power plant. Or we could start eating algae or something from the ocean, or using tidal generators.

 

But like most quizzes you find on the internet, it's designed to get you to give someone money, not collect any useful data or tell you anything interesting. See the "Worlds Shorest Libretarian Leaning Politcal Quiz" for another good example.

 

But it's good marketing. Had me thinking about the real cost of Twinkies again. (it's about $10 btw)

 

TFS

[Qfwfq]

As they should be until no one is exempt.

Somewhat chicken-and -egg, is it not?

 

My point was that we cannot force them to do anything or any of the other countries that are doing as they please regardless of environmental effect.

Except by invading them! Bush style... :cup:

 

Sorry, couldn't help it, just couldn't. :gift: The point is that I don't want to force anybody, I simply claim that more could be done and neither Bush nor Clinton have been a help. The carbon trading scheme simply doesn't convince me in the least. I don't see it incentivating less overall emissions.

 

From the industrial revolution to quite recent decades, we were farting away shamelessly and there was no one trying to tell us what it would lead to. We've now become more aware of the trouble and we can afford to change our ways. India and china have been going through this much more rapidly and can now afford to be more eco-friendly and they'll have to be, if they care about some other benefits in global politics. The lack of unity between other countries doesn't help though.

 

China has expressed preference for the trading scheme, and I wonder why! :surprise:

 

The OP impled as much with the title of this thread. Some people just want to point fingers at someone even if they really have no individual control to cause a difference.

I agree the thread title isn't too appropriate but there was an apology about that. I do agree though that Bush should give higher priority to the environment here than to putting a few people on Mars and I find it ludicrous to put faith in colonization as a relief to overpopulation here.

[Qfwfq]

C'mon Faith... don't take me tooooooo seeeeeriously! :gift:

 

Still, I don't particulaly like being criticized for choices I can't help but make. And it's a bit of a false choice to say I shouldn't have running water and electricity. You know, I do what I can - within reason. Not really a crictcism of the quiz, but of it's implied solutions. The solution being that we should all live in big cities without electricity or running water and eat organically grown vegetables. I'm not even sure that's possible.

Nobody's telling you to live in the stone age. I think you should take a spin through the links on the results page, including the FAQ, one of which is about exactly your case. Less choice of using public transport and more for eating veg from your own garden. You're certainly doing better than your neighbour that eats only processed food, trucked in from far away and maybe drives an SUV even where the few busses would be handy.

 

The quiz is designed to make you think about what you do. It can't avoid making some assumptions and using figures typical for your area, age etc. I haven't donated them any money but I tend to suppose all their effort is for good cause, not just to make themselves rich. I also doubt they are against alternative energy sources. They are simply telling us according to status quo.

 

One thing you might find interesting, pretend you're a family father in Mozambique or Bangladesh and aanswer accordingly. See how many times this planet those folk are occupying. Am I trying to tell you to live in these places and with their style of life? :surprise:, but a comparison can be helpful.

 

P. S. Where individual choice is limited, there is still such a thing as spreading the idea and influencing collective choice.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I do agree though that Bush should give higher priority to the environment here than to putting a few people on Mars and I find it ludicrous to put faith in colonization as a relief to overpopulation here.

 

Well, that's a reasonable statement. On the other hand, I think that the implication there is that the Mars budget is the only thing in the federal budget that's worth cutting. Again, I think it's a false choice. Either we go to Mars or we fix this planet. I don't think that's the case. I mean, $641 BILLION dollars to Health and Human Services - most of which is in "non-discretionary" spending like Medicaid, Unemployment, etc. $5XX Billiion for Defense - fully a FIFTH or MORE of which is dedicated to invading countries full of brown people. And then we've got $16.5 billion for NASA, which does more than just put people on Mars.

 

Raise the retirement age to 70. That'd fix Social Security. When Social Security was implemented the average life expentancy was 68.2 - it's now edging 80. That's more you have to pay out for longer.

 

Or better yet - DON'T INVADE COUNTRIES. Especially if you're not going to get anything out of it. [sarcasm] I mean, we invade a country in the Middle East, which is FULL of oil, and gas prices go UP? That doesn't make any sense. For crying out loud, we invaded 'em - let's at least do some pillaging! [/sarcasm]

 

Anyway, I agree with you that going to Mars is not a fix for all the problems here, but I don't agree with you that it's a good place to cut. It's a pittance of the federal budget, and as I've said before it is the most important thing we will ever do. Even if we manage to live in a perfect utopian gaian balance with Mother Earth (won't happen) if we don't explore and move outwards we are all doomed sooner or later anyway.

 

Uh oh, I feel a WWII analogy coming on! :sheepish: The Depression was a bad thing. We needed to fix the US economy. On the other hand, the Nazi's were probably one of the most evil things that humanity has ever thought up. We didn't really have the money to do both did we? It's a bit like saying that we can't go kick some Nazi butt until we get our economy back on it's feet. I don't think that that's an insulting analogy, because I think the consequences for pulling in and not exploring, or ignoring the burgeoning environmental catastrophe could be just as grave as letting the Nazi's run riot over Europe.

 

The consequence for not invading Iraq however? Having trouble thinking of bad ones right now.

 

Anyway, you can disagree with me if you want, but I'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is to it. :surprise:

 

TFS

[sarcasm should be in a different font]

[Qfwfq]

You have a point or two Faith, but I'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is to it. :surprise:

 

I'd give priority to Health and Human Services and fixing this planet over mannie on Marsie, and I'd completely cut the billions for invading countries.

[C1ay]

Somewhat chicken-and -egg, is it not?

Not really. As long as there are exemptions then Kyoto is a guarantee that U.S. jobs will move elsewhere. U.S. workers should not have to give up jobs because our President signed an agreement that enables their employer to move their production elsewhere. The agreement should prevent that.

 

The carbon trading scheme simply doesn't convince me in the least. I don't see it incentivating less overall emissions.

It won't. It's simply a politician's loophole. Emmissions trading could cause more harm than good.

 

I find it ludicrous to put faith in colonization as a relief to overpopulation here.

I hope you don't think I've suggested that. I think the only long term solution to overpopulation will be some kind of limits on reproduction. There are people that don't want to hear that but they need to realize, this planet is only big enough to support so many people and once we exceed that number it could be the beginning of the end for all of us.

[Qfwfq]

As long as there are exemptions then Kyoto is a guarantee that U.S. jobs will move elsewhere. U.S. workers should not have to give up jobs because our President signed an agreement that enables their employer to move their production elsewhere. The agreement should prevent that.

It would be right to make laws preventing national firms from loopholing Kyoto elsewhere.

[Pyrotex]

Well, that's a reasonable statement. ...Or better yet - DON'T INVADE COUNTRIES. Especially if you're not going to get anything out of it. [sarcasm] I mean, we invade a country in the Middle East, which is FULL of oil, and gas prices go UP? That doesn't make any sense. For crying out loud, we invaded 'em - let's at least do some pillaging! [/sarcasm]...[sarcasm should be in a different font]

Perhaps we could all agree that bold font is using our parental voice and italics are for our sarcastic voice. But I doubt if we could agree on that.

 

For some REAL sarcasm, see htp://www.whitehouse.org

Check out their posters.

I love the one showing Dubya in a WWII fighter cockpit, flying lead in a formation of similar fighters, and the caption has George saying something like,

"That's AMERICA's oil, you're hoarding down there! And I've come to LIBERATE it!!!"

 

WAAAaaayyy too funny. :surprise:

[InfiniteNow]

Calls for impeachment were made when Clinton got head... have there been any such calls for GWB considering all of the issues which have arisen since he was seated in the oval?

[LJP07]

I was wondering what George W Bush was doing in an Earth Science forum..but the I figured out he's the same as a rock. He's Hard-Faced, Grainy Old Surface( His Old Skin ), Dense ( as in stupid ), gets walked all over by people ( Terrorists ).

 

And the question is " Is George Bush a complete moron ", YES.

[Southtown]

Calls for impeachment were made when Clinton got head... have there been any such calls for GWB considering all of the issues which have arisen since he was seated in the oval?

Um... first, calls for impeachment were made when Clinton committed perjury.

 

And second, can you name a few issues that have arisen since GWB took office that constitute prosecution. Also, verifiable evidence would be really neat.

[TheFaithfulStone]

And second, can you name a few issues that have arisen since GWB took office that constitute prosecution. Also, verifiable evidence would be really neat.

 

Clever. Lies about your penis under oath constitute a heinous moral offense. Lies about matters of life and death to the entire country when you are not legally obligated to tell the truth is no big deal.

 

People bitched about Clinton and his "legal parsing" and CYA - but compared to ol' GW, Bill was a rank amateur. How else do you reconcile all of those "signing statements" (in particular the torture ban) which invalidate laws in practice while still maintaining them in text?

 

How else is it justified to be culpable for several thousand American deaths at best through criminal incompetence, and at worse through gross negligence and malfeasance, and say - "but I wasn't under oath when I told those lies."

 

As a committed Clinton-hater, I can tell you that I miss the days when the president lied about what he did to who for how many jelly beans.

 

Or is the only criteria for which we are to judge a lie that it previously have been legally declared to be the truth?

 

Caveat Auditor.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Um... first, calls for impeachment were made when Clinton committed perjury.

Thanks for your committed dedication toward accuracy, and I apologize if I mistated my original question. If you permit, I will try again here...

 

 

During the Clinton administration, calls for impeachment were made over an issue I saw as less impactful to our nation's well being and lives of our citizens. However, I strongly believe that some choices made within the Bush administration (the son not the father) have had an enormously negative impact on our nation's well being and the lives of our citizens, and I was curious if any calls for impeachment have been made as a result.

 

 

Thanks again for keeping it real. :)

[Southtown]

Or is the only criteria for which we are to judge a lie that it previously have been legally declared to be the truth?

Only if you find yourself asking why he isn't being tried in a court of law. Morality is irrelevant to the legal system. I do agree with you that it is despicable, though, of course.

 

Do you have any more info on GWB's legal meandering?

 

During the Clinton administration, calls for impeachment were made over an issue I saw as less impactful to our nation's well being and lives of our citizens.:)

That is up for debate. :) And, thank you too. ;)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Do you have any more info on GWB's legal meandering

 

Good place to start

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Very cool TFS.. Thank you.

 

 

EDIT: Just reread one of your previous posts and answered my own question.