12736217, is this your first day on the Internet? Posted by SoWhat, Wed Feb-25-15 05:24 PM
>I don't know if you have kids or not, so why would I be >talking about *your* kids? It's fine if you don't have, or >like, kids. The point of that statement was to provide a >timeframe of the effects of global warming. Yes, kids tugs on >the heartstrings, but no, it's not the crux of the argument. >I alluded to this with the "50 years or 500 years" statement.
oh okay. so you brought up kids for nothing. right on.
>> it doesn't. but YOU brought up the kids, homie. LOL > >And you're still talking about kids without talking about my >actual points.
yeah b/c you brought a strawman into the discussion. i foolishly addressed it. my bad.
>> oh well let me acknowledge it here. >> Obama vetoed to save face in international politics. as >usual. >> did i acknowledge it? > >Thanks, you did. Note that it directly refutes your original >point.
that's fine w/me. b/c my mind is open. i'm willing to change my original position.
my current position is that this Keystone veto is more about politics - int'l and domestic - than about anything else. like global warming.
>> that YOU made, homie. > >Still focused on the kids? > >> you brought up the kids, pal. > >And still focused on the kids. Point wasn't about the kids, >point was about the timeframe.
right. and when i made those replies you hadn't explained why you brought up the kids, buddy.
is this your first day on the Internet?
>> and it's been said that this Keystone veto won't have much >impact on global warming, right? >> i thought i read that. maybe didn't. > >Wrong. You don't understand the issue. The Keystone pipeline >*itself* has a disputable impact on global warming (depending >on who you ask).
which...is....what i said? LOL. but okay.
The Keystone *VETO* has major impact >regarding global policy. There is a massive difference here.
yeah. okay. so: international politics this is about. not global warming. got it.
>> if you can tell me that this veto means the weather won't >get freakier for me here in Chicago >> then i'm all for it. if you can show me that this veto means >the polar ice will re-freeze then >> i'm about to print some 'FUCK THAT KEYSTONE BULLSHIT' >t-shirts. if you can show me that the veto >> means an end to the drought conditions in Cali so i don't >have to take 5 minute showers when i >> visit my folks out there then i'll make some 'KEYSTONE IS >CRAPSTONE' signs and we get it on and >> popping. > >Didn't I already address this before you typed all that >anecdotal stuff?
i dum so i probably missed it.
Like I said in my first post, the China >accord was well received across the world, but it means squat >if Obama turns around and approves Keystone. And in my second >post, I talked about how it will take decades to fix global >warming. So no, I'm sorry, the veto itself doesn't directly >fix YOUR Chicago weather, but it's an impactful decision for >decades to come.
so it won't fix my weather.
so why should i care about it?
oh, b/c int'l politics?
or b/c it'll have impact in 50 or 500 yrs? when i'll be long dead?
right on.
>You don't have to agree with me.
thanks for the permission.
But you're not exactly >providing actual evidence that is changing my mind.
i'm not trying to.
I'm >sorry, like I said, your personal experiences have no bearing >on national policy.
clearly.
>Here's some evidence right here: > >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/12/09/us-china-global-warming-deal-could-signal-shift-on-climate-change > >You want to provide some reputable links to support your >position now?
i'm not trying to persuade anyone here.
but i understand the point that approving Keystone would fly in the face of the agreement Obama made w/China as related to climate change efforts. so i get the veto in that regard.
it's like...they agreed to limit fossil fuel consumption or som'n and so to agree to build a pipeline that'll make it easier to consume a fossil fuel is kinda backassward.
but i still wonder if not building this one pipeline will do much to limit fossil fuel consumption. it won't help increase it but i expect there will be other efforts geared at easing our consumption of fossil fuel. which is why i'm not that jazzed about this veto, though i do understand it a bit better now.
|