Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    I love the liberal members of Hollywood who preach about saving the environment, using hybrid cars, etc. Then, for example, Leonardo DiCaprio hops on a private jet so he can attend both the New York and LA premieres of Fahrenheit 9/11. I think someone even asked him about it, and the irony was totally lost on him.
    I love how the the conservative members of the Church preach tolerance and compassion and then say and do such hateful things. For example, Pat Robertson once said that so many hurricanes hit Florida because of the high number of gays living there. I think someone even asked him about this once.. he didn't quite get it.

    Remeber Satori... rational
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    I love how the the conservative members of the Church preach tolerance and compassion and then say and do such hateful things. For example, Pat Robertson once said that so many hurricanes hit Florida because of the high number of gays living there. I think someone even asked him about this once.. he didn't quite get it.

    Remeber Satori... rational
    how was I irrational in making a comment about a stupid actor?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Targets are tied to economic growth. In the case of Japan and Canada the state of the economy has meant that the chances of meeting the Kyoto protocol targets are all but gone and they are actually increasing their emissions. The US plan is not as ambitious, but the targets remain clear and obtainable.
    Fine, but Japan and Canada will miss targets that are more ambitious, perhaps still reduce emissions and under the protocol will have to further reduce emissions in the next period. I believe the US targets may be obtainable but that they are inadequate. How can you say that the targets are clear when the plan has not been released? All we have are the barebones of a plan, it might end up being more watered down and unclear than you seem to think.

    Canada increased emissions by 20% in 2003, unrealistic targets are no better than no targets at all. The ratified protocol, if implemented is evidently more effective on paper, but at what cost? The US economy has enough on its plate in regards to China and India without having to stuggle with fixed, static targets that have little consideration for economic climate changes and developing countries. That doesnt strike me as being a particuarly effective global policy.
    If the countries work towards the targets, unrealistic targets still reduce emissions. And why do you say they are unrealistic? Are you suggesting the countries knew when they signed the protocol they were going to miss the targets?

    The US Congress is still considering proposing something similar to Kyoto that would take developing nations into consideration.
    That is nice, but the point i raised was that how are developing nations going to react to a suggestion that they should curb emissions increases - they will cite the US policy and it will not help the argument.


    Hang on, the US was perfectly willing to sign up to the Kyoto protocol and did. It then negotiated, with every other signatory, for targets to be imposed on developing countries as part of GLOBAL effort. This was rejected particuarly by the EU. Other countries also rejected Kyoto Mark I. If there had been an agreement that countries like China, India and Brazil had targets imposed then the Clinton would have been most likely willing to submit it to Congress for ratification.
    I don't know enough about that to comment, but if that is the case, the US policy has gone downhill in my view.

    Im trying to understand the US position and their motivations. I also understand the position of the EU. I dont have a cast iron position that I am unwilling to move from, but will follow the discussion as it goes. The stance of the majority prior to my opposition was that the Americans were cold hearted, gas guzzling pigs that purposely rejected international cooperation on a perfectly acceptable and implementable environmental policy. Bush, the oil man, as President of American Greed, apparently didnt even have a plan.
    Maybe I should have asked this at the beginning, you seem to be getting worked up :rolleyes: Maybe this is why people don't admit their mistakes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    rational-Having or exercising the ability to reason.

    USA, Douglas, and yourself always dig up these specific examples where one person does something hypocritical and then you attempt to push this act onto a larger group of people all the while failing to see the same acts of hypocracy by those of your own party. I was simply illustrating this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    rational-Having or exercising the ability to reason.

    USA, Douglas, and yourself always dig up these specific examples where one person does something hypocritical and then you attempt to push this act onto a larger group of people all the while failing to see the same acts of hypocracy by those of your own party. I was simply illustrating this.
    I think you're reading way too far into the comment. I was talking about Hollywood liberals and their actions. Are you going to say that Hollywood liberals aren't predominantly hypocritical? I wasn't making some generalized statement about liberals in general, and in fact, liberalism is only a secondary issue in the anecdote.

    I'm sorry if I'm being a bit defensive about this, but considering the treatment I've received today by another member of TSR, I'm not in the mood for insults.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    I think you're reading way too far into the comment. I was talking about Hollywood liberals and their actions. Are you going to say that Hollywood liberals aren't predominantly hypocritical? I wasn't making some generalized statement about liberals in general, and in fact, liberalism is only a secondary issue in the anecdote.

    I'm sorry if I'm being a bit defensive about this, but considering the treatment I've received today by another member of TSR, I'm not in the mood for insults.
    I think hes taking issue to your use of the word liberal.
    I never thought of 'liberal' as being an insult until i met the axis. The way you bandy it around seems like its another '******' in the making. Recall that once upon a time that too was just another word until people abused it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    I never thought of 'liberal' as being an insult until i met the axis.
    what is this axis?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what is this axis?
    You dont know the axis?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    You dont know the axis?
    Not personally no.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Hmm, I think you have looked very superficially at what the Great Scoiety was and why it didn't work
    Great society (for those who don't know) was a set of initiatives thought up acutually by JFK not Johnson. It actually covered civil rights too, such as the 1964 act forbidding job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations; the 1965 law guaranteed black voting rights.
    A third civil rights act in 1968 banned housing discrimination and extended constitutional protections to Indians on reservations.
    The welfare ones to which you have such disdain were started in 1965 with the mediaid program (expanded in 66 to cover all who couldnt pay for care, not just the over 65 group).
    More money was sunk into education, helping in particular the inner city sink schools.
    other progjects included 'Upward Bound', which assisted poor high school students entering college; legal services for the poor; the Food Stamps program; and Project Head Start, which offered preschool education for poor children.
    However, how do you expect any of these to make an impact when the budget (which was already about 30% of that required) was then stripped back because of the expansion of the Vietnam War. Effectively much of the whole great society program was cut off in 1967 to pay for a war. (history repeating..?)

    "liberals claimed there would be massive poverty and starvation. The fact that this never happened shows what a failure welfare really was. "

    The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) announced today that a new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report based on Census Bureau surveys shows another rise in the number of hungry and food insecure Americans. The total number of people living in food insecure households in this country – with or without hunger – went up to 36.3 million in 2003. This number included 23 million adults (10.8 percent of all adults) and 13.3 million children (18.2 percent of all children.)

    This number compared to 34.9 million in 2002, 33.6 million 2001, 33.2 million in 2000, and 31 million in 1999. 11.2 percent of US households ( 12.6 million households) experienced either food insecurity or hunger in 2003.

    9.6 million of these individuals lived in households that experienced outright hunger


    You were saying?
    The article you most of your info from at http://college.hmco.com/history/read...eatsociety.htm
    ends in saying "And the gap between the expansive intentions of the War on Poverty and its relatively modest achievements fueled later conservative arguments that government is not an appropriate vehicle for solving social problems."

    The author of the article basically admits that the Great Society is a failure when you look at the negligible results vs. the expense.


    As for the rest, written in orange, it never puts the numbers in perspective. We've had a pretty dramatic increase in population from legal and illegal immigration. As a percentage of our population, those numbers could be decreasing. Also, they never say what the criteria is in determining what a "food insecure household" is. Typically, in collecting this sort of data, they use a formula where they assume that the average american family makes X amount of money and spends 1/3 of X on food. If any household makes less than this third, they have "food insecurity."
    It is also assumed that the census information is being filled out properly by all families, which is unlikely as well.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The article you most of your info from at http://college.hmco.com/history/read...eatsociety.htm
    ends in saying "And the gap between the expansive intentions of the War on Poverty and its relatively modest achievements fueled later conservative arguments that government is not an appropriate vehicle for solving social problems."

    The author of the article basically admits that the Great Society is a failure when you look at the negligible results vs. the expense.


    As for the rest, written in orange, it never puts the numbers in perspective. We've had a pretty dramatic increase in population from legal and illegal immigration. As a percentage of our population, those numbers could be decreasing. Also, they never say what the criteria is in determining what a "food insecure household" is. Typically, in collecting this sort of data, they use a formula where they assume that the average american family makes X amount of money and spends 1/3 of X on food. If any household makes less than this third, they have "food insecurity."
    It is also assumed that the census information is being filled out properly by all families, which is unlikely as well.
    Hmmm, well responded. I did read that end part "...fueled later conservative arguments..." but I believe that the program wsn't given much of a chance - just a few short years, and so was destined to fail. But that that failure hs been picked up by conservatives ever since as 'evidence' they should move actively away from any form of socialism.

    As for the food insecure bit, I honestly never did factor in people lying in a census. In the UK it wouldn't hapopen - the Census is confidential. But i suppose the US with large amounts of immigrants they might be a bit more wary of authorities, and reduce their quoted income.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Hmmm, well responded. I did read that end part "...fueled later conservative arguments..." but I believe that the program wsn't given much of a chance - just a few short years, and so was destined to fail. But that that failure hs been picked up by conservatives ever since as 'evidence' they should move actively away from any form of socialism.

    As for the food insecure bit, I honestly never did factor in people lying in a census. In the UK it wouldn't hapopen - the Census is confidential. But i suppose the US with large amounts of immigrants they might be a bit more wary of authorities, and reduce their quoted income.
    Right after I submitted my post, I found a good article that backs up almost everything I suspected regarding poverty, the census, and immigration:

    http://www.bushcountry.org/news/colu...te_numbers.htm

    The source is "Bush country", so the author is going to be inherently biased, but I think her numbers are dead on.

    Does the immigration disaster in the USA make it hard to assess the effectiveness of government programs? Probably.

    If I can't trust my own government to watch its own borders, than how can I trust it to do anything other than fix the roads and manage the military? We've got 12 million or more people wandering around here that the government isn't keeping tabs on. I wonder how many of them are terrorists
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    i think a large part of it is jealousy, although i dont think people like to admit that. I'm sure there are some who just really do hate america for whatever reasons, but i think there are many people who are jealous of the USA.
    Jealousy really is not the issue. As an American, naturally you prefer that way of life, as thats what you've grown up with, what you are accustomed to,etc
    Well heres some news..Other people feel like that about their home countries!!..i am perfectly happy to respect Americans having their way of life and culture, and not **** it off...just as we should respect all different cultures....But the fact they insist so much on ramming it down people's throats and telling people "this is the way to live" understandably causes resentment...Have you ever considered also that it might be to do with America's interventionist, high handed, crazy foreign policy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    ..Have you ever considered also that it might be to do with America's interventionist, high handed, crazy foreign policy?
    Well, I dont hate 60million Frenchmen for theirs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Jealousy really is not the issue. As an American, naturally you prefer that way of life, as thats what you've grown up with, what you are accustomed to,etc
    Well heres some news..Other people feel like that about their home countries!!..
    I don't. I'm a Brit but I'm afraid I prefer the American way of life. No competition IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Well, I dont hate 60million Frenchmen for theirs.
    Well i meant "America" as in as a world political power, not as in "Americans" or every individual American, which it would be absurd to say you hated...

    What is France's foreign policy anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't. I'm a Brit but I'm afraid I prefer the American way of life. No competition IMO.
    well thats logical, thats why you live there, but clearly there are many who don't
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Have you ever considered also that it might be to do with America's interventionist, high handed, crazy foreign policy?
    Poor yanks can't win. If they intervene they're wrong for being imperialists or only doing so for selfish reasons. If they don't intervene they're wrong for being the most powerful country in the world but remaining indifferent.

    This puts them between the Devil and the deep blue sea a bit doesn't it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    well thats logical, thats why you live there, but clearly there are many who don't
    There are many who aren't knowledgable enough to have an opinion. If you've never eaten apple pie you can't really say you prefer rubharb crumble can you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Poor yanks can't win. If they intervene they're wrong for being imperialists or only doing so for selfish reasons. If they don't intervene they're wrong for being the most powerful country in the world but remaining indifferent.

    This puts them between the Devil and the deep blue sea a bit doesn't it?
    Well i'm talking about issues like Chile and General Pinochet....which good old thatcher supported too
 
 
 
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.