Having dispatched Kyoto, Bush goes after ban on pesticides, ozone depleting chems

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Having dispatched Kyoto, Bush

theres a troll title if i've ever seen one. you do realize the US NEVER joined that flawed treaty to start

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Lucky

That's the point... isn't it. If you or I read or come into information that supports the position we endorse... with our limited knowledge but with a general attitude toward the issue. So we post what we agree with and use the voice of another to do so.... This assumes we are not posessed with the entire knowledge of the universe, because save that, all we have is the scientific method - and nothing is absolute-...

The easiest way to argue against anything is to say... that is biased or that person knows nothing... etc...
I submit if a person says something that don't fit.. then there must be a ten word statement that would indicate why... to castigate a person who posted it "Critical Parenting" IMO

The point is that busmaster11 wanted to know why etech or people didn't think it was credible. That reason is bias, which is clearly present. Now that doesn't mean that the chemical isn't bad or mean that the Bush admin isn't trying to add it's own provisions into the ban. But the article clearly doesn't even try to give both sides of the story, it only dwells on the "bad" things about this chemical. I don't know squat about what it is or does and could really care less at this point.
The article is clearly bias and will therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
Now if an relatively objective article on the same subject was posted then all might be well but alas it wasn't, so here we sit - in the ATP&N sandbox fighting over who's sand castle leans the most.

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Having dispatched Kyoto, Bush

theres a troll title if i've ever seen one. you do realize the US NEVER joined that flawed treaty to start

Yes. It meant that by not joining it, we have effectively neutralized its potential by discouraging and demoralizing the nations that intended to join.

It's flawed only to paranoid conservatives who feel the EU is out to get us. And don't tell me about economic impact. No country is better equipped to bear its brunt than the most prosperous one of all - the US.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Lucky

That's the point... isn't it. If you or I read or come into information that supports the position we endorse... with our limited knowledge but with a general attitude toward the issue. So we post what we agree with and use the voice of another to do so.... This assumes we are not posessed with the entire knowledge of the universe, because save that, all we have is the scientific method - and nothing is absolute-...

The easiest way to argue against anything is to say... that is biased or that person knows nothing... etc...
I submit if a person says something that don't fit.. then there must be a ten word statement that would indicate why... to castigate a person who posted it "Critical Parenting" IMO

The point is that busmaster11 wanted to know why etech or people didn't think it was credible. That reason is bias, which is clearly present. Now that doesn't mean that the chemical isn't bad or mean that the Bush admin isn't trying to add it's own provisions into the ban. But the article clearly doesn't even try to give both sides of the story, it only dwells on the "bad" things about this chemical. I don't know squat about what it is or does and could really care less at this point.
The article is clearly bias and will therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
Now if an relatively objective article on the same subject was posted then all might be well but alas it wasn't, so here we sit - in the ATP&N sandbox fighting over who's sand castle leans the most.

CkG

I can certainly agree to that, but I would like to see the other side of the story.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Having dispatched Kyoto, Bush

theres a troll title if i've ever seen one. you do realize the US NEVER joined that flawed treaty to start

Yes. It meant that by not joining it, we have effectively neutralized its potential by discouraging and demoralizing the nations that intended to join.

It's flawed only to paranoid conservatives who feel the EU is out to get us. And don't tell me about economic impact. No country is better equipped to bear its brunt than the most prosperous one of all - the US.

Flawed to conservatives? the senate outright rejected kyoto 97-0. This happened under the previous admin, but somehow this admin gets the blame for it.