TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- If you could undo one Bush move...

If you could undo one Bush move...

Now that we are in the eve of the first part of Bush's presidency, I thought it would be fun to hear both the pro and anti-Bushes' answer to this one:

If you could undo/change one decision/move made by Bush and/or his administration in these four years, what would it be?

(I would ratify the Kyoto accord)

To base the war on WMD

Re: If you could undo one Bush move...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic (I would ratify the Kyoto accord)

It's interesting about Kyoto because many nations probably would not have signed on had Mr. Bush not pulled out in such an insulting manner (to those other nations).

he has actually done alright with the recession, especially for doing nothing in office for the first 4 of 8 months in office.

the war is inexcusable and had no basis whatsoever - unless it was required against an *actual* threat to the US like PRK|

(and thats still a big IF)

Becoming President. *buh-duh tsshh...*

Anyway, another vote for the WMD issue.

I'd really like to be supporting operations of finding WMD in Tahiti or Fiji or something. We need to go to war with better locales.

Seriously, if I could take something back, it would be Bush using the "God told me to do this" thing about the war over here. Maybe he did... but it really makes you wonder about the reasons we're here.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil ... Seriously, if I could take something back, it would be Bush using the "God told me to do this" thing about the war over here. Maybe he did... but it really makes you wonder about the reasons we're here.

Ooh good point. I dont doubt the soldiers - just the reason for deployment. And that goes FAR beyond just the WMD issue|

Why do you guys lay all of the blame with Bush for pulling out of Kyoto? The US Senate effectively killed US participation in the treaty when they voted against it 95-0. It was a dead issue LONG before Bush was ever President. I don't know how many times that needs to be said.

No American President would sign it, and no Senate would ever pass it. Even with the current partisan split in the Congress, the majority of Dems would vote against it. You want to know how bad it is? In the Hollywood newspaper Variety, the unions and guilds took out a full page ad urging people to call their Senator to make sure that the treaty was dead. It would literally cost the US millions of jobs.

I wish Bush was never born

when he failed from a bicycle

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec To base the war on WMD

Basing it on ideology would probably have been political suicide, I think. Nobody wants to go to war for differences of opinions. Going to war in order to protect yourself and those you love is a much more acceptable deal. Sad but true?

Re: Re: If you could undo one Bush move...

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ It's interesting about Kyoto because many nations probably would not have signed on had Mr. Bush not pulled out in such an insulting manner (to those other nations).

I thought it had the opposite effect? Didn't Australia, Canada, Russia, and Japan re-evaluate their dedication to the Kyoto accord as a result of the US position?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Why do you guys lay all of the blame with Bush for pulling out of Kyoto? The US Senate effectively killed US participation in the treaty when they voted against it 95-0. It was a dead issue LONG before Bush was ever President. I don't know how many times that needs to be said.

I thought the president of the US could overrule the Senate?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok No American President would sign it, and no Senate would ever pass it. Even with the current partisan split in the Congress, the majority of Dems would vote against it. You want to know how bad it is? In the Hollywood newspaper Variety, the unions and guilds took out a full page ad urging people to call their Senator to make sure that the treaty was dead. It would literally cost the US millions of jobs.

That's where the concept of political courage should come into effect. Even if your decision may harm some of your population, that should be weighted against the prospects of not doing anything. It's the same deal with outlawing tobacco - it will cost jobs but in the long run it is better for the state of the US... ....and the same deal with going to war for securing oil supplies for the future at the cost of some US casualties.
You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs - and in the case of Kyoto the importance of the omelet should make the risk of loosing the next election worthwhile.

Btw. I would like a source on those *millions* of lost jobs. I don't believe it.

Re: Re: Re: If you could undo one Bush move...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I thought the president of the US could overrule the Senate?

No. All foreign treaties that are signed by the President have no effect until they are ratified by the Senate. No Senate, no treaty. Which is why what Bush did meant absolutely nothing from a legal perspective.

quote:

Btw. I would like a source on those *millions* of lost jobs. I don't believe it.

It's easy. Just read the Protocol. The US must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level. I don't think I need to tell you that our economy has grown massively since then. Environmental technology has gotten better too, but it hasn't gotten good enough to return a much, much larger economy to some arbitrarily set emission level.

Thus, you will need to close factories outright in order to be in compliance. Nevermind that the treaty was crap to begin with. The US shouldered much of the CO2 and emissions reduction burden, with developing nations completely free to continue their poisonous manufacturing techniques. (like China's chemical dust storms that travel over the Pacific and land in the US.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: If you could undo one Bush move...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok It's easy. Just read the Protocol. The US must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level. I don't think I need to tell you that our economy has grown massively since then. Environmental technology has gotten better too, but it hasn't gotten good enough to return a much, much larger economy to some arbitrarily set emission level.

Countries such as sweden is following the protocol. their economys has grown a lot to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: If you could undo one Bush move...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok No. All foreign treaties that are signed by the President have no effect until they are ratified by the Senate. No Senate, no treaty. Which is why what Bush did meant absolutely nothing from a legal perspective.

What if the president push for a resolution? I've heard that when he push for a decision for the second time the senate is wihout power to stop him? If not, then please tell me what powers the US president actually posess?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok It's easy. Just read the Protocol. The US must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level. I don't think I need to tell you that our economy has grown massively since then. Environmental technology has gotten better too, but it hasn't gotten good enough to return a much, much larger economy to some arbitrarily set emission level. Thus, you will need to close factories outright in order to be in compliance. Nevermind that the treaty was crap to begin with. The US shouldered much of the CO2 and emissions reduction burden, with developing nations completely free to continue their poisonous manufacturing techniques. (like China's chemical dust storms that travel over the Pacific and land in the US.)

I think that you are mixing things up here: Poisonous clouds of chemicals from China have nothing to do with CO_2 emissions. Poison is poison - people die from inhaling or digesting it. CO_2 is something else. You don't die from that immediately, but the concentration of it in the atmosphere regulates the average temperature in areas around the globe. A few houndred thousands of cancer cases stemming from China is most likely peanuts compared to the problems derived from global temperature changes.
As to the US shouldering much of the reduction burden to begin with, I think that we should keep in mind that the US is responsible for more than 25% of the current oil-to-carbon-dioxide processes. A number which is way too high considering the US population's fraction of the world population. And, yes, you will need to close some factories, but why don't you take into account the new jobs arising in the windmill or public transportation industry? And is more than one in a hundred americans really employed in a factory whose only existence justification is the exploitation of non-renewable resources?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you could undo one Bush move...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Countries such as sweden is following the protocol. their economys has grown a lot to.

Accidentally! You are nothing but a bunch of primitive lumberjacks. Remember that. *Real* countries do a cost/benefit analysis before committing to a specific course of action. You and your idealistic code of conduct is nothing but a bump on the road to normal countries with a selfish agenda. Bush laughs at you and your "efficiency".

Biggest Bush blunder: increasing the deficit and debt.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.