>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.