Bush Threatens U.N. Over Clinton Climate Speech

December 9, 2005 5:07 PM

Bush Threatens U.N. Over Clinton Climate SpeechBush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might’ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak at the gathering today in Montreal,
posted by Postroad (115 comments total)

Yep. And when they make sure Clinton doesn't speak, they STILL won't sign on to it. For, uh, other reasons, I'm sure.
posted by davejay at 5:09 PM on December 9, 2005

first they UN, second they Bush administration
posted by davejay at 5:10 PM on December 9, 2005

er yeah, because Bush was going to sign up if Clinton hadn't been allowed to speak. It seems equally likely that monkeys could start flying out of my butt any minute now.
posted by clevershark at 5:12 PM on December 9, 2005

This isn't about signing onto kyoto. It's about walking out on the conference in Montreal, which they did this afternoon. They had been participating. They walked out.

If you're going to snark, at least be informed please.
posted by alms at 5:14 PM on December 9, 2005

I bet GW was that kid that your mom's friend brought over that you hated playing with, because 10 minutes into a game he would throw a tantrum and say you were cheating, although you were already taking it easy on him because he seemed a little slow.
posted by 2sheets at 5:15 PM on December 9, 2005

America is generally a disgrace and embarrassment to humanity, so this is no surprise.
posted by fire&wings at 5:16 PM on December 9, 2005

only 3 more years! only 3 more years!
posted by j-urb at 5:21 PM on December 9, 2005

alms writes "This isn't about signing onto kyoto. It's about walking out on the conference in Montreal, which they did this afternoon. They had been participating. They walked out."

Hold on; they didn't walk out because of Clinton, did they? Can anyone provide a link with a coherent narrative? All of the news stories I can find seem abrupt and confused.


Much like myself.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:23 PM on December 9, 2005

So.. they didnt want Clinton to speak becasue...? he'd make Bush look bad? Newsflash: Its too late to worry about that.
posted by edgeways at 5:24 PM on December 9, 2005

I'm curious about the Bush stance on this. He and his staff claim is that the protocols would be too costly to U.S. industry. Well if all of the other countries can afford the measures, why can't the U.S.

And BTW, we all knew that the Bush camp had no interest in the Kyoto Accord.
posted by snsranch at 5:26 PM on December 9, 2005

"only 3 more years! only 3 more years!"

Long, miserable, and bleak years.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 5:27 PM on December 9, 2005

Student council president: "I am canceling the prom if he is going to be there!"
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:28 PM on December 9, 2005

Well if all of the other countries can afford the measures, why can't the U.S.

The argument is that all the other countries don't have to afford the measures. China, which is the next big industrial powerhouse, doesn't have to obey Kyoto.
posted by unreason at 5:31 PM on December 9, 2005

THE KYOTO TREAT IS A SHAM.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:35 PM on December 9, 2005

Y
posted by ParisParamus at 5:35 PM on December 9, 2005

..es I am a tool.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:38 PM on December 9, 2005

Nah, it was Martin's comments that pissed off Bush Cheney.

"That was a big mistake," said the delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity Thursday. He said the U.S. delegation, which is directed from Washington by Vice-President Dick Cheney, was deeply angered by Martin's comments.

posted by birdherder at 5:38 PM on December 9, 2005

Just helping you complete that thought, PP.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:38 PM on December 9, 2005

Paris, that is easily one of the most incoherent articles I've ever read. And most of his points are easily the stupidest. There's no global warming because it's cold this winter? I'm sorry, but even you can do better than this.
posted by unreason at 5:39 PM on December 9, 2005

Had America and Australia ratified Kyoto, and had the Europeans complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C - a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation.

From Paris's link. Now THAT'S some funny shit!

Paris, considering that the statement is correct, what exactly is the purpose of the meetings and accords? Are they just trying to look cool?
posted by snsranch at 5:40 PM on December 9, 2005

A nice Kyoto Treat could make me betray my brothers and sisters right now.
posted by interrobang at 5:40 PM on December 9, 2005

Read the article. It's wonderful.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:42 PM on December 9, 2005

interro, you would for a stale rice cake.

(kidding)
posted by snsranch at 5:43 PM on December 9, 2005

interrobang: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Obscure AND current. nice one.
posted by tkchrist at 5:44 PM on December 9, 2005

Read the article. It's wonderful.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 PM EST on December 9 [!]

I did. It is not only poorly written, but largely unscientific and illogical. Its reaction towards England's cooling trend is particularly stupid. Here's a hint: When a writer refers to environmentalists as "eco-doom-mongers", he's not entirely unbiased.
posted by unreason at 5:46 PM on December 9, 2005

Really bad article there PP. The guy has no credentials, it is like me saying "The Earth is flat!!! I can prove it, look out your window". Try again.

Next!
posted by edgeways at 5:46 PM on December 9, 2005

Wake up and smell the CO2, guys. Sayonara, Kyoto. Hello, coalition of the emitting.

Oh, that's what Paris was talking about.

Again, from his link.
posted by snsranch at 5:46 PM on December 9, 2005

"Paris, considering that the statement is correct, what exactly is the purpose of the meetings and accords? Are they just trying to look cool?
posted by snsranch at 8:40 PM EST on December 9 [!]"

Basically, yes. They are full of sh... (hereinafter, "FOS")
posted by ParisParamus at 5:48 PM on December 9, 2005

Not meaning to pile on Paris, because I can be convinced with some basic facts. In the mean time, if it looks like shit, and smells like shit, I don't need to taste it to come to a conclusion.
posted by snsranch at 5:50 PM on December 9, 2005

You know, it's not even a question of whether global warming is happening. It's about egocentric poseurs seeking to prove they are superior. And I say this as a very pro-environmental person, cyclist and hater of suburbia and big cars.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:52 PM on December 9, 2005

2sheets: "I bet GW was that kid that your mom's friend brought over that you hated playing with, because 10 minutes into a game he would throw a tantrum and say you were cheating, although you were already taking it easy on him because he seemed a little slow."

Beautifully precise wording.

ParisParamus: "THE KYOTO TREAT IS A SHAM."
interrobang: "A nice Kyoto Treat could make me betray my brothers and sisters right now."
tkchrist: " interrobang: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Obscure AND current. nice one."

This post has just made my day. Makes me actually crave that Turkish Delight!
posted by mystyk at 5:53 PM on December 9, 2005

Don't sniff the turd.
posted by squirrel at 5:54 PM on December 9, 2005

Steyn has great credentials. He is a top-flight writer and thinker. He does his research. Don't be deceived by the Cult of Experts. You don't need to be an expert to do the math and realize that certain "experts" are FOS.

And again, I'm talking about Kyoto here; not global warming. I would be all in favor of reducing CO2 emissions in an intelligent, sensible way. But these people in Montreal are idiots.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:56 PM on December 9, 2005

Martin called on all nations to join the global effort to fight climate change, adding: "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say there is stuch a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it."

[...]

"That was a big mistake," said the delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity Thursday. He said the U.S. delegation, which is directed from Washington by Vice-President Dick Cheney, was deeply angered by Martin's comments.

Dick Cheney is a big fat pussy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:58 PM on December 9, 2005

You're soaking in it.
posted by Balisong at 5:59 PM on December 9, 2005

C'mon now squirrel, that wasn't cool at all.

And FWIW, PP, I agree about doing things in an intelligent way. Life is too short to bullshit, but then again that is a major difference between politicians and scientists.
posted by snsranch at 6:01 PM on December 9, 2005

This is one of those things that shows what small balls Clinton really has (except when it comes to extra-marital sex). Bush is never going to sign that treaty, and Clinton should know that. Eff Bush, give the speech, put the pressure on, go for the political points, because that is all you have got. No. Instead he waffles on whether to give it or not, letting Bush's toadies control him. What a wimp. Do you think his hero, JFK, would have decided not to give the speech, even thought about it? When the other side is playing hard ball, you generally have got to play that game too, either that or set them up for failure through their overextension. You want the Kyoto treaty signed? The only way is to paint those bastards into a political corner. Having the ex-president of the United States stand up and call their bluff is a first step in that endeavor. Having him personally tell the world about their threat would be step two.
posted by caddis at 6:02 PM on December 9, 2005

Steyn has great credentials. He is a top-flight writer and thinker.

No he isn't. He's a hack who appears in Moonie-owned rags like the Washington Times.

He does his research

No he doesn't. Most of his positions were debunked by real scientists years ago. Of course, considering that his original specialty was writing about drama, not science, his ignorance isn't surprising.

Don't be deceived by the Cult of Experts.

So...I should listen to a drama critic instead of every reputable climotologist is the Western world? There's a reason why they are experts, it's because they actually know what they're talking about, unlike Steyn, who's just an ex-disk jockey who used to write about the theater.
posted by unreason at 6:03 PM on December 9, 2005

True, caddis.
posted by Balisong at 6:08 PM on December 9, 2005

Mmm Big Turk. Plasticky-chocolate-coated-red-coagulated-gel all in a patriotic red-white-and-blue wrapper. Pulls out your fillings and makes your dentist a rich rich man.

Make friends with Big Turk

sinfully republican!

kyoto is less a sham than the whole 'we do not torture' crap - not to try to establish moral equivalency - but why is it that american legislators time and time again conclude that the laws for the rest of the world don't apply to them. . .

It is like they are a bunch of egocentric poseurs seeking. . . ah stuff it.
posted by isopraxis at 6:09 PM on December 9, 2005

Don't worry, be happy, everything will be fine. Just wet the tip of your radium paint brush with your tongue so that you can paint those fine details on the watch face. It won't hurt you. Anyone who says otherwise is just a Chicken Little. Beside, lots of jobs, especially mine, depend upon staying the course here.
posted by caddis at 6:12 PM on December 9, 2005

FOS is FOS. Kyoto isn't going to do anything anytime soon, except the US look bad. This is a crystal clear example of the Left being FOS.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:13 PM on December 9, 2005

Okay. Let me get this straight. The US delegation threw a hissy fit over Martin's comments, right? Well, the above link isn't working for me, so I googled and got this article. On the subject of Martin's inflammatory comments, it says:

In his comments Wednesday, Martin called on all nations to join the global effort to fight climate change, adding: "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say there is stuch a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it."

What, are you fucking kidding me? Seriously... they really got their panties in a wad over that? I don't buy it. That's probably the most gentle rebuke Bush has received in the past six months. Weren't they expecting this sort of rhetoric? Wouldn't Martin have to be the ultimate pussy if he didn't even go to bat on this? Either there's more to the story, they didn't want to cop to opposing the Clinton speech, or these guys need their diapers changed.
posted by Clay201 at 6:14 PM on December 9, 2005

Take the 1 tonne challenge

Make america look bad

(that is the real motivation behind it you know.)

Gawd.
posted by isopraxis at 6:19 PM on December 9, 2005

Messy Diapers All Around!
posted by Balisong at 6:20 PM on December 9, 2005

What, are you fucking kidding me? Seriously... they really got their panties in a wad over that?

Actually it's more likely that Bush got pissed when Martin said “Fundamentally, foreign policy of this country — the overall policy of this country — is set by the prime minister and I will continue to do that” in reference to the fact that he wasn't going to take any shit from Bush.

While I'm impressed to see a Canadian Prime Minister who appears to have grown some balls with respect to US relations, one has to wonder how much the upcoming election has to do with it (probably lots). Presidents, and especially this one, need to be put in their place.
posted by clevershark at 6:21 PM on December 9, 2005

ALL president's need to be put in their place.

They can campaign all flighty and unbound, but once they take the position of power, the public needs to pull taught the reigns, as it were.

I know.... I daydream too much.
posted by Balisong at 6:25 PM on December 9, 2005

-'
posted by Balisong at 6:26 PM on December 9, 2005

PP is right. Bush is smarter and better informed than anyone on global issues. I mean, who else has a direct line to God?
posted by telstar at 6:31 PM on December 9, 2005

George W Bush is a honorable man:
    So I know he wouldn't consider joining Kyoto unless he thought that good for America.

George W Bush is an honest man:
    So I know he wouldn't lie about maybe signing on to Kyoto if Clinton stayed away.

George W Bush is a patriotic man:
    So I know he wouldn't put political games ahead of the nation's welfare, and hurt America just to manipulate Bill Clinton.

So honorable, honest, patriotic George will sign Kyoto! I mean, he has to, right?
posted by orthogonality at 6:32 PM on December 9, 2005

Caddis,

According to the article he DID speak, all he said was that he didnt want petty politics to get in the way of the U.S. signing the treaty. However the conference organizers decided that they were going to call Bush's bluff and asked that Clinton speak anyway.
posted by skrike at 6:36 PM on December 9, 2005

ParisParamus: "FOS is FOS. Kyoto isn't going to do anything anytime soon, except the US look bad. This is a crystal clear example of the Left being FOS."

I don't give a shit which side of the spectrum your personal beliefs lie; when you talk about issues like this with expectations or demands of immediate returns, you already show your lack of critical thought on the issue.

These things aren't about what you get 'anytime soon'. It's about what's left for the people that come after you. For your kids/grandkids/etc and all that shit.

Those who care more about their generation then their successors are the ones voting against things like the Kyoto Treaty. Those same people also have a proven track-record of identifying themselves as (and voting on the side of) Republicans*.

* I mean specifically post-new-deal Republicans.
posted by mystyk at 6:38 PM on December 9, 2005

Caddis,

According to the article he DID speak,

Also according to the article, he almost did not because he was swayed by the threat. He only spoke after the threat was withdrawn. That was spineless.
posted by caddis at 6:45 PM on December 9, 2005

GUYS! you forgot to not talk to PP.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:48 PM on December 9, 2005

I have a feeling that the current republican crowd has a much higher/harder/more immediate vision of what future generations will have to endure than I would.
posted by Balisong at 6:51 PM on December 9, 2005

"I mean, who else has a direct line to God?"

Here he is with his right-hand man being advised on the Kyoto Protocol.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 6:51 PM on December 9, 2005

I.E.) Priorities include getting your next pint of gas/ engaging a duel for a glass of non-radioactive water.
posted by Balisong at 6:53 PM on December 9, 2005

caddis is right. Clinton displayed a complete lack of spine. No balls whatsoever.
posted by Clay201 at 6:57 PM on December 9, 2005

caddis: Seriously, a former president not wanting to get into a public fight with the sitting one, stepping aside to rise above the fray... THAT'S SPINELESS?

Gah, must be easy living in the Red state of mind.
posted by andreaazure at 7:03 PM on December 9, 2005

Clinton at least displayed his lack of balls.
Bush has yet to unzip and produce that big Texas wang he's been hinting at.
posted by Balisong at 7:04 PM on December 9, 2005

ParisParamus: You know, it's not even a question of whether global warming is happening. It's about egocentric poseurs seeking to prove they are superior.

Out of the mouths of boobs. That's maybe the first thing I can remember PP ever saying that I agree with. Conservatives are willing to wreck the environment, screw over the poor, scuttle science education, and alienate the U.S. from every country on the planet, just to show them goldang college-boys with their book-lernin' that they ain't no better than plain folks.

(If my elitist attitude alienates me from the inbred, redneck, salt-of-the-earth denizens of red states (including Texas, the one I live in), well, I will try to conceal my anguish.)
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:08 PM on December 9, 2005

andreaazure:

Seriously, a former president not wanting to get into a public fight with the sitting one, stepping aside to rise above the fray... THAT'S SPINELESS?

Seriously. It absolutely is. "Above the fray" has a nice ring to it, but, at least in this case, it's just another way of saying "too chicken to take a risk."
posted by Clay201 at 7:19 PM on December 9, 2005

The extreme Republicans would love nothing more than to sink their teeth into ANYTHING Clinton would say. It would distract from Bush's Nixon-esque approval/disapproval ratings, the complete halt of the Social Security reform, the horrible economic recovery (for those of us in the bottom 95%), there was something else too...

Oh yah. That whole Iraq thing.
posted by andreaazure at 7:41 PM on December 9, 2005

"Take the 1 tonne challenge

"Make america look bad"

That's the slogan Rick Mercer should be using in his ads.
posted by Mitheral at 7:41 PM on December 9, 2005

CNN front page = Clinton: Bush 'flat wrong' on climate

Too chicken? Clinton accomplished exactly what he intended, and threw in a little bit of pragmatism. That's what we loved him for, after all.
posted by VulcanMike at 7:43 PM on December 9, 2005

Ummm Clinton doesnt HAVE to be there, he has been trowing a lot of support behind this lately which is a lot more than anyone can say for our current president. You complain that he ALMOST didnt speak, Im sure people would cry out and say he hated freedom if he ignored the president and spoke anyway.

Bush has yet to unzip and produce that big Texas wang he's been hinting at.
posted by Balisong

Exactly. Bush is ALL swagger. He would never admit he was wrong. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
posted by skrike at 7:44 PM on December 9, 2005

PP, Mark Steyn and the rest of the right-wing punditocracy base their articles on position papers put out by right-wing think-tanks. Nothing more, nothing less. Right-wing think tanks are paid to publish pro-right-wing position papers. Steyn and right-wing pundits are paid to write essays based on those position papers that are intended to appeal to the general public.

As to what actually happened:

Bush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might’ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak
...
On Friday afternoon, Clinton did end up speaking at the conference

So the White House threw a temper tantrum, but Clinton spoke, anyway. And the headlines all blare, "Clinton Tells Bush He's Wrong at Kyoto Conference."

Works for me.
posted by deanc at 7:59 PM on December 9, 2005

Does anyone else find it funny that the US administration is fishing for any justification to avoid even discussing Kyoto?

I'm not saying that there is any sort of conspiracy per say, but godamnit, this is idiotic and childish. If you do not agree with the eco-consensus, have the fucking balls to actually admit it. Stop patronizing and blaming everyone else in an effort to bury or divert focus.
posted by purephase at 8:46 PM on December 9, 2005

posted by Smedleyman at 8:52 PM on December 9, 2005

the public needs to pull taught the reigns
You misspelled "kneads".
posted by Aknaton at 9:04 PM on December 9, 2005

Aknaton wins.
posted by aramaic at 9:26 PM on December 9, 2005

ParisParamus , i don't know how to say this . . . but you make dios seem reasonable.

i base this on not just this thread but , just about any thread i have had the displeasure of reading your headache inducing , utterly bat-shit crazy comments on.

i don't want you to get the wrong idea, i'm not trying to argue a point here , i just wanted you to know , how you make me , personally feel , when i read your thoughts. mostly , bad. sometimes , afraid for the people near you. mostly , stunned , that you can find your keyboard , let alone the room you keep your computer in.

FOS is FOS. Kyoto isn't going to do anything anytime soon, except the US look bad. This is a crystal clear example of the Left being FOS.
posted by ParisParamus

bravo sir ! i could not agree more this is indeed a clear example of the left being full of shit. it almost reminds me of the time folks were saying that , were a cat 5 hurricane to hit new orleans that as many as 50,000 people could perish. i remember in 04 you explaining that view as nothing more than hyperbole. but i guess since we lost 2 thousand people in nola to standing water, and that was after a million had been evacuated from the southern areas of louisiana, i guess saying a city of half a million could sustain a death toll of 50,000 in the event of a cat 5 storm tearing through the grid locked city, that would be hyperbole. or maybe you don't know what you are talking about.

never mind that experts had studded just such an eventuality , never mind that experts are predicting deadly outcomes now , of a grander scale, you just keep talking about what you know, which is little to nothing. the past speaks for it self.
posted by nola at 9:50 PM on December 9, 2005

nola, I think the equation you're looking for is:
ParisParamus * Evolution = bevets * Global Warming
posted by nkyad at 9:53 PM on December 9, 2005

posted by IronLizard at 10:05 PM on December 9, 2005

First google result for sockpuppet. Odd.
posted by IronLizard at 10:08 PM on December 9, 2005

I saw the greatest bumper sticker today - it was the W '04 logo, and next to it, it said "So, how's that working out for you?"

Rah rah America.
posted by davelog at 10:16 PM on December 9, 2005

Personally, I prefer the "Cthulu '04 : Why settle for the lesser evil." sticker on a friend's car.
posted by mystyk at 10:25 PM on December 9, 2005

"Steyn has great credentials. He is a top-flight writer and thinker. He does his research. Don't be deceived by the Cult of Experts. You don't need to be an expert to do the math and realize that certain "experts" are FOS."

I'm with you on the last sentence, Paris. But the whole "he does his research" thing -- no way. It took me 5 minutes to find out he just hasn't: "America's emissions have fallen [since 2001] by nearly one per cent" is just easily disproved from simply the official Energy Information Administration numbers: From 2001 (Steyn's pick) to 2003 (the most recent year for which data is published), CO2 emissions climbed from 5,777 to 5,870 million metric tons.

OK, Steyn said "greenhouse gas", not "CO2". On that, EIA say we've been continuing to climb since 1993, at an average rate of 1% a year. Since 2001 (Steyn's pick), it's a 0.7% increase (sidebar).

You're right, Paris, that you don't need to be any kind of an exper to see who's "FOS." But a little bit of honesty does't hurt either. America's emissions continue to climb, according to official government statistics. Steyn is either lying, or hasn't done the research.
posted by nickmark at 11:34 PM on December 9, 2005

It's not healthy to continue to respond to PP. We all know he's FOS. Responding to his trolling is only distracting the thread (which is his forté).
posted by darkstar at 12:49 AM on December 10, 2005

Bush is not a Texan.
posted by melt away at 2:36 AM on December 10, 2005

What we can learn from PP is how good the right is at diverting a thread from its poster's original intent and turning it into a trivial personality slamming contest.
posted by donfactor at 3:55 AM on December 10, 2005

You don't need to be Karl Rove to troll a thread.
posted by mek at 6:11 AM on December 10, 2005

"bravo sir ! i could not agree more this is indeed a clear example of the left being full of shit. it almost reminds me of the time folks were saying that , were a cat 5 hurricane to hit new orleans that as many as 50,000 people could perish. i remember in 04 you explaining that view as nothing more than hyperbole. but i guess since we lost 2 thousand people in nola to standing water, and that was after a million had been evacuated from the southern areas of louisiana, i guess saying a city of half a million could sustain a death toll of 50,000 in the event of a cat 5 storm tearing through the grid locked city, that would be hyperbole. or maybe you don't know what you are talking about."



NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- The number of deaths in Louisiana blamed on Hurricane Katrina has risen to 799, the state's Department of Health and Hospitals said Wednesday, bringing the overall death toll to 1,033.


Exactly. Cat 5 storm: 1,033 dead for the ENTIRE STATE of Louisiana. But the idiot Left got a lot of milage out of it, not New Orleans, which is what that past discussion was about. But the Left got a lot of milage out of the whole FEMA Brown thing.

But this is beside the point. My point is the Kyoto is a FOS attempt by people who think they are smarter than President Bush to prove it.

Kyoto should be IGNORED, as should its supporters. Its as worthless as the United Nations is right now. It has nearly nothing to do with truely addressing global warming. It's another branch of the UN we have to fix or close. FOS is FOS is FOS.

And I say this as a very pro-environmental person. I hate cars, pollution, cigarettes, and 70 Degree-heated rooms!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:35 AM on December 10, 2005

What we can learn from PP is how good the right is at diverting a thread from its poster's original intent and turning it into a trivial personality slamming contest.
posted by donfactor at 6:55 AM EST on December 10 [!]

I wouldn't attribute it to the "right". PP brought up the "left" out of his ass as usual as if saying such a thing is somehow convincing.

Yes, he is regularly embarrases himself like well known right-wing pundits (except he doesn't get traction for it here of course), but I'd say those people (Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) are the equivalent of extreme groups in any society. People just don't know what to do with them. Such naked, idiotic, selfish, bald-faced idiocy and deception is simply quite astounding.

An ignorance will breed a better world philosophy and approach, argued over and over again, with nonsensical arguments that cite obviously disprovable evidence and outright lies just boggles the mind. How can such behaviour be serious? It bleeds into the theatre of the absurd.

See those in any society who advocate terrorism and fundamental interpretations (if they can be called that) of religious material or completey misunderstand philosophical works. Just, as has been said before, batshit insane.
posted by juiceCake at 6:35 AM on December 10, 2005

You're right, Paris, that you don't need to be any kind of an exper to see who's "FOS." But a little bit of honesty does't hurt either. America's emissions continue to climb, according to official government statistics. Steyn is either lying, or hasn't done the research.
posted by nickmark at 2:34 AM EST on December 10 [!]

"In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent.

Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.

Steyn's point isn't that US emissions have fallen by 1%--a trivial amount that likely won't last (though the efficiency of the US economy continues to increase remarkably). His point is that the adherents to Kyoto aren't doing any better, and that they won't ever even meet Kyoto's targets, and even if they did, it would have no significance. And that the people in Montreal are demigogues.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:50 AM on December 10, 2005

"(Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) are the equivalent of extreme groups in any society."

What planet do you live on? The three mentioned are a tad Right of Center. Rush is talented and smart, Hannity somewhat less so on both counts. Coulter is an ass. But in any case, all three are just slightly right of Center. But I'm glad all three annoy you.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:54 AM on December 10, 2005

This is where you lose all credibility Paris. Coulter and Limbaugh are anything but "a tad" right of center. I agree that their hyperbole is bigger than their conservatism, but they are still way over to the right. Now if you define the center as being somewhere in the middle of the current GOP then perhaps you are correct, but that would erode your credibility even more.
posted by caddis at 7:12 AM on December 10, 2005

No, the Center is somewhere between Senators Lieberman and Clinton. And if you listen to Limbaugh or Hannity (I want to like Hannity, but he just sounds too stupid), and filter out the exaggerations they use to make a point, neither is that far to the Right.

Just curious, do you think Rush is further to the Right than Hannity?

By the way, it doesn't help by saying "where you lose all credibility." Why can't you just say "I disagree that..."?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:21 AM on December 10, 2005

And who do you consider a politician of the Center?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:21 AM on December 10, 2005

"Slightly right of center" - priceless

And thus I wonder which media persons are far right of center on the planet peepee lives on.

Don't lawyers have to learn how to spell in NYC mr. ambulance chasing peepee?
posted by nofundy at 7:27 AM on December 10, 2005

But, you still think the president should be indicted, right?
posted by bshort at 7:44 AM on December 10, 2005

I agree with your definition of center Paris, and I disagree with your characterization of Coulter and Limbaugh as just slightly to the right of Clinton/Lieberman. As for Hannity, he seems more complex in his views than either Coulter or Limbaugh. They seem solidly conservative on every issue, yet Hannity seems more willing to see both sides of an issue, despite his firm conservatism. I think both Coulter and Limbaugh are smarter than Hannity, but both shoot themselves through their own hyperbole. The only people that will listen to them are the people who already believe what they are selling. Coulter in particular is a nutjob. I also do not buy the Rush is brilliant nonsense he peddles. Mostly he is funny, not brilliant, at least in my opinion.
posted by caddis at 7:51 AM on December 10, 2005

No, I think he should be added to Mr. Rushmore. And then I think you should be forced to move to South Dakota. And then, once you're there, I think they should re-name it Mr. Bushmore. Just to annoy you.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:52 AM on December 10, 2005

Rush is talented and smart, Hannity somewhat less so on both counts. Coulter is an ass. But in any case, all three are just slightly right of Center.

And Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I have ever known in my entire life.

There's a certain class of MeFites, a little too earnest in their desire to educate you, that are going to decide that your problem is merely that you haven't had things explained clearly enough. The rest of us think you're acting like a brainwashed ass. I mean, the endorsement of Mark Steyn thing was bad enough, but come on; at this point, you're just making an ass out of yourself.
posted by deanc at 7:53 AM on December 10, 2005

Caddis, ok, that's fair.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:53 AM on December 10, 2005

No, I think he should be added to Mr. Rushmore. And then I think you should be forced to move to South Dakota. And then, once you're there, I think they should re-name it Mr. Bushmore. Just to annoy you.

I'm not a fan of your politics Paris, and in general you have troll-like qualities.

But that, my friend, is funny.
posted by AspectRatio at 7:55 AM on December 10, 2005

Sorry, deanc, but I think you've be hanging around the actually, or equivalent of the Upper West Side for two long. Rush isn't that far right. And I think Steyn is brilliant.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:56 AM on December 10, 2005

Sorry, deanc, but I think you've be hanging around the actual, or virtual Upper West Side for too long. Rush on the right, but he isn't that far right. And I think Steyn is brilliant. A brilliant, funny, smart writer.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:23 AM on December 10, 2005

I really think that something technical is corrupting my words here. Is that possible?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:24 AM on December 10, 2005

I really think that something technical is corrupting my words here. Is that possible?

Not just possible but likely. At a guess, I'd say you blew a gasket on your bullshit hose, and it's spraying hot steaming turd all over the place, mucking up the gears. Probably too much low-octane Steyn in the pistons - that'll ruin any engine.

My apologies to everyone else for feeding this know-nothing troll, but he'd already completely hijacked the thread with his Tourette's-like bleating on a deadly serious subject he demonstrably knows less than nothing about.
posted by gompa at 9:00 AM on December 10, 2005

Could it be a combination of your brain and keyboard?
posted by Balisong at 9:19 AM on December 10, 2005

Jebus for a killfile.

PP, you're a regular derailleur. I guess noise really can be an effective strategy.
posted by fenriq at 9:54 AM on December 10, 2005

just how is talking about Kyoto and the FOS politics of the Left derailing a thread about same?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:09 AM on December 10, 2005

The Left be contained within Metafilter! The containment field must hold! If it is breached, the consequences for the environment will be catastrophic.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:11 AM on December 10, 2005

The Left be contained within Metafilter! The containment field must hold! If it is breached, the consequences for the environment big business will be catastrophic.
posted by mystyk at 11:13 AM on December 10, 2005

Goddamn, it would be nice if George Bush Jr. would just grow the fuck up.

Also, why in the hell are you dummies participating in PeePee's trolling? You know he's as full of shit as my impacted colon. Ignore the stupid fucker, for fucks' sake!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:29 AM on December 10, 2005

I am the closest thing that Metafilter has to a voice of reason. You grow up. Also, Canada should shut up.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:23 PM on December 10, 2005

Canada should shut up.

This makes me prouder than ever to be a Canadian.

*wipes away tear*

*lights joint*

*ratifies Kyoto accord*

*resumes wrapping of gay-wedding present for stem-cell researcher friend and his International Criminal Court attorney husband*
posted by gompa at 12:42 PM on December 10, 2005

Mr. Bushmore is my porno name.
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on December 10, 2005

I am the closest thing that Metafilter has to a voice of reason. You grow up. Also, Canada should shut up.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:23 PM EST on December 10 [!]


Comic genius. It's so absurd you rival Beckett and Eunesco. And what's more, you do so even in your personal profile:

The Metafilter Ship, listing ever leftward....

Use of the word 'port' would be more suitable. I guess we all slip sometimes.
posted by juiceCake at 1:48 PM on December 10, 2005

What planet do you live on? The three mentioned are a tad Right of Center. Rush is talented and smart, Hannity somewhat less so on both counts. Coulter is an ass. But in any case, all three are just slightly right of Center. But I'm glad all three annoy you.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:54 AM EST on December 10 [!]

I live on the same planet you do. Why would you be glad that I'm annoyed by people who have no integrity? I'm not annoyed, I find them laughable. You belong on television too. Seriously. You need to publish a book at least. I can see at Costco now...
posted by juiceCake at 1:52 PM on December 10, 2005

"Bush is not a Texan."

I'll top that. Bush is not an American. He's an elitist. He couldn't give a rats ass about the American people.
posted by muppetboy at 2:27 PM on December 10, 2005

ParisParamus threads are the funniest. He just seems like Ignatius J. Reilly come to life.
posted by dig_duggler at 3:16 PM on December 10, 2005

Paris deserves some kind of award for being such a masterful troll.

I am the closest thing that Metafilter has to a voice of reason. You grow up. Also, Canada should shut up.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:23 PM EST on December 10 [!]

Brilliant!
posted by homunculus at 7:34 PM on December 10, 2005

it's "demagogues" or "demagogs," not "demigogues." you'd think the devil would know how to spell his own name...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:25 AM on December 12, 2005