Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Of course, the greatest argument against Kyoto is simply that the U.S. doesn't need an international treaty to fix its problems, and therefore we are better off doing it on our own.

    I'm not sure if I read that right.

    Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself, so why bother with getting others involved?
    • Are you suggesting that the U.S. can solve the world's pollution problems all by itself

      No, I thought it was clear "the U.S. ... fix its problems" referred to the U.S. pollution problems. Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
      • Each nation can deal with their own pollution problems.
        So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders? If I dump toxic waste in the Rio Grande, it will know to stop at the Mexican border? If we release smoke into the atmosphere, it will know not to go over the ocean?

        Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be treated like one. I know this won't change your mind because "you're cool like that", but your argument is becoming nonsensical.

        • So you're saying pollution doesn't cross borders?

          No, I said nothing of the sort.

          your argument is becoming nonsensical.

          No, it isn't. Rather, you don't understand it, so it seems nonsensical.

          Of course pollution can be a problem that crosses borders. So too with many things, such as the economy. If the U.S. has to have certain pollution standards for Mexico's sake, does Mexico have to have a certain economic standard of living for the U.S.' sake?

          Pollution is not a local problem, and shouldn't be tr
          • Hang on a minute...

            Being a democracy sometimes means doing what people and business don't want.

            Everybody else managed to pass Carbon laws and targets despite the 'huge economic harm'.

            Also the developing nations pollution is negligable in comparison to the United States - even China and Russia Pollute less than the united states.

            Finally what with the US claiming to be the last superpower and guardian of freedom, etc self-policing, etc the magnaminous thing to do would be to sign up.. but no it ha
            --

            @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
            print reverse @JAPH;
            • Everybody else managed to pass Carbon laws and targets despite the 'huge economic harm'.

              What do you mean "everyone else"? Are you implying the U.S. has no such laws and targets? If so, you should go read a book, then come back and discuss.

              Or do you mean all the other nations signed onto Kyoto? Well, you'd be wrong there, too. Several other nations have not ratified it, including Australia.

              Also the developing nations pollution is negligable in comparison to the United States - even China and Russia Pollute less than the united states.

              As that is not an argument against anything I actually said, wrote, or thought, I won't respond to it.

              Finally what with the US claiming to be the last superpower and guardian of freedom, etc self-policing, etc the magnaminous thing to do would be to sign up

              Based on what? That is seriously flawed logic. At best it's question-begging, at worst it's just picking words out of a hat and hoping they mean something.

              You did not address any of my actual complaints about Kyoto. Do so, if you care about actual dialogue.

              Its not about american democracy and freedom its about american corporate self interest, corruption and a bad choice at the last election.

              So you are anti-democracy? I can't see another reasonable way to describe the idea that we can only cut our pollution through an international agreement, instead of handling it on our own. Maybe the last phrase is more evidence you are anti-democracy?