Magox Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 It appears to me that the "Developing" nations are looking for charity. China and India have both said developed countries should contribute at least an annual 0.5 percent of their economic output to developing nations to help them lower emissions and adapt to the effects of global warming, such as more severe droughts and higher sea levels. That amounts to about $200 billion a year at current levels. China criticized the most industrialized countries today and said they are threatening the success of the negotiations. Rich countries “have put forward a plethora of unreasonable requests to developing countries,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters today in Beijing. “We believe this has a negative impact on the negotiations and will hamper the Copenhagen conference from achieving positive results.” UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has said about $100 billion to $300 billion a year in climate aid is needed. When they say the "developed" countries should contribute $200 Billion a year, guess who they are looking at to foot the majority of the bill? It's a global wealth distribution scheme and in a period in time when we are hurting tremendously economically I say they can go !@#$ themselves.
LeviF Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 It appears to me that the "Developing" nations are looking for charity. When they say the "developed" countries should contribute $200 Billion a year, guess who they are looking at to foot the majority of the bill? It's a global wealth distribution scheme and in a period in time when we are hurting tremendously economically I say they can go !@#$ themselves. IMO, China can no longer call themselves a "developing" or periphery nation. They've come too far industrially, and certainly can go !@#$ themselves. Countries like Rwanda, the DRC, etc. are developing nations.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 We're moving from westernizing 3rd world countries to "climatizing" 3rd world countries.
KD in CA Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Hope they all make it home safe in their private jets. Gee, I guess all these brilliant "leaders" never heard of a video conference. Of course, that method tends to reduce the whole point of a boondoggle.
keepthefaith Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 It appears to me that the "Developing" nations are looking for charity. When they say the "developed" countries should contribute $200 Billion a year, guess who they are looking at to foot the majority of the bill? It's a global wealth distribution scheme and in a period in time when we are hurting tremendously economically I say they can go !@#$ themselves. Shucks, we're giving the Chinese near $200 billion now for interest payments. Tell them to invest that in cleaner factories.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 It appears to me that the "Developing" nations are looking for charity. When they say the "developed" countries should contribute $200 Billion a year, guess who they are looking at to foot the majority of the bill? It's a global wealth distribution scheme and in a period in time when we are hurting tremendously economically I say they can go !@#$ themselves. Did you start this thread just to show off the new skills John Adams taught you?
Magox Posted December 16, 2009 Author Posted December 16, 2009 Did you start this thread just to show off the new skills John Adams taught you? Don't hate
stuckincincy Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 It appears to me that the "Developing" nations are looking for charity. When they say the "developed" countries should contribute $200 Billion a year, guess who they are looking at to foot the majority of the bill? It's a global wealth distribution scheme and in a period in time when we are hurting tremendously economically I say they can go !@#$ themselves. I hear recently, that certain third-world nations want a trillion dollars forked over to them - Asian and African and South American. Despotic regimes - I'm not aware of a true democracy that is poverty-stricken - forking money over to any these tyrannical regimes is the ultimate in stupidity. They merely will line their pockets in same fashion, like any aid they received through the years. These clucks now in Copenhagen, living the high life, talk about stupidities like...windmills. Those nations need things like sanitary water supplies, sewage systems,a certain level of reliable power supplies, help in fighting malaria, HIV, shovels, seeds, etc. Not...windmills. Cap 'n trade is the ultimate con job, IMO. The profits, huge monetary gains for a few, and the losses socialized and heaped and extracted from the hides of the many. Your hide. Your kid's hide. Your parent's hide. This global warning crowd is exceptionally jaded, and in deep love with their own fannies. Holding this dog 'n pony show in Copenhagen in the winter? How idiotic. If I were calling their shots, it would be held in the summer somewhere with a sweltering climate. IIRC, AlGore had something similar in NYC a few years ago, when near record-low temps took place. BTW - as an exercise, trace Al's money trail and how he's lined himself up to garner billions off this.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 I hear recently, that certain third-world nations want a trillion dollars forked over to them - Asian and African and South American. Despotic regimes - I'm not aware of a true democracy that is poverty-stricken - forking money over to any these tyrannical regimes is the ultimate in stupidity. They merely will line their pockets in same fashion, like any aid they received through the years. I think Obama is trying to trick them by promising huge sums of dollars. Huge sums of dollars used to mean huge sums of wealth, but pretty soon a trillion dollars will be worth about 14 cents. What the heck is a dictator going to do with 14 cents? That ought to be fun to watch. Obama.
IDBillzFan Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 So Obama speaks to the world on climate change: We must act now. There is no time to waste. The time for talk is over. We're running out of time. There must be transparency. Here's $100 billion. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Does the fact that I enjoy watching whack-jobs squirm make me a bad person? I'll save you the effort: No, being a god-hating pinko makes you a bad person.
Magox Posted December 18, 2009 Author Posted December 18, 2009 Does the fact that I enjoy watching whack-jobs squirm make me a bad person? So I see you've been keeping up with the infighting amongst the Democrats in the Health Care debate or is it the infighting in Copenhagen? To answer your question no, it doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you some sort of a masochist, that's all.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 So I see you've been keeping up with the infighting amongst the Democrats in the Health Care debate or is it the infighting in Copenhagen? To answer your question no, it doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you some sort of a masochist, that's all. I like the infighting. Seems the Dems don't behave in lockstep with the party, which is a good thing.
DC Tom Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Does the fact that I enjoy watching whack-jobs squirm make me a bad person? I'm going to say yes. With the caveat that I enjoy it too, and I think I'm a bad person.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 me too Doesn't the unfettered group-think that your preferred party generally engages in bother you?
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 I'm going to say yes. With the caveat that I enjoy it too, and I think I'm a bad person. I can live with it.
Magox Posted December 18, 2009 Author Posted December 18, 2009 Doesn't the unfettered group-think that your preferred party generally engages in bother you? When people vote on things just for the fact of towing the party line, it tells me that they are spineless cowards. When elected officials vote on things based on principle and representation of their electorate, then I commend them for it. True Conservatives in my view wouldn't vote for this bill, because it mandates that people have to buy insurance or face penalties, it taxes people who have more to pay for the insurance of people that have less and that it creates another huge government entitlement program which I am fundamentally opposed to. You see Gene, what this bill does is that it gives incentives for people to live mediocre lives. Let me explain, lets say that you qualify for a government subsidy if you make less than $65,000 a year, by staying below that threshold you are entitled to government money, but if you make $67,000 a year then you would lose that government subsidy. If you are earning $195,000 a year, you wouldn't be directly taxed in this bill, however, if you make $205,000 a year you would be subject to new taxes. The point that I am making is that ANY system that gives incentives to live mediocre lives and punishes those that make above a certain income is something that I will ALWAYS oppose. So to get back to my point, the Republicans had lost their way, and right now there is a push that is being demanded by most Americans for these fools to be more prudent with their taxpayer money. So what you are seeing is a group, that is in the minority, trying to find their voice. This voice is the voice of their electorate, and these people are saying "KILL THIS BILL". I do agree with the premise of your argument, just that in this case it doesn't apply. Why? Because they are standing by their fundamental principles of conservatism, trying to find their voice and listening to their constituents, which is more than what many of the Democrats are doing. I can also tell you this, many of the Democrats know that they are walking the plank on this one, and they are taking one for the "team", the sad thing is that, the "team" is the Democratic team, not the American team.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 When people vote on things just for the fact of towing the party line, it tells me that they are spineless cowards. When elected officials vote on things based on principle and representation of their electorate, then I commend them for it. True Conservatives in my view wouldn't vote for this bill, because it mandates that people have to buy insurance or face penalties, it taxes people who have more to pay for the insurance of people that have less and that it creates another huge government entitlement program which I am fundamentally opposed to. You see Gene, what this bill does is that it gives incentives for people to live mediocre lives. Let me explain, lets say that you qualify for a government subsidy if you make less than $65,000 a year, by staying below that threshold you are entitled to government money, but if you make $67,000 a year then you would lose that government subsidy. If you are earning $195,000 a year, you wouldn't be directly taxed in this bill, however, if you make $205,000 a year you would be subject to new taxes. The point that I am making is that ANY system that gives incentives to live mediocre lives and punishes those that make above a certain income is something that I will ALWAYS oppose. So to get back to my point, the Republicans had lost their way, and right now there is a push that is being demanded by most Americans for these fools to be more prudent with their taxpayer money. So what you are seeing is a group, that is in the minority, trying to find their voice. This voice is the voice of their electorate, and these people are saying "KILL THIS BILL". I do agree with the premise of your argument, just that in this case it doesn't apply. Why? Because they are standing by their fundamental principles of conservatism, trying to find their voice and listening to their constituents, which is more than what many of the Democrats are doing. I can also tell you this, many of the Democrats know that they are walking the plank on this one, and they are taking one for the "team", the sad thing is that, the "team" is the Democratic team, not the American team. The question really wasn't about any particular bill, but I see you're hot on this healthcare topic. You're against mandatory health insurance, mostly because of the cost to taxpayers. Who do you think currently foots the bill for the uninsured? You're against tax brackets or any hard line used to separate taxpayers into groups. How do you propose taxpayers be categorized? You say there's infighting among the Dems (which you find amusing) and that's what's holding up this bill. Then you add that it's the true Conservatives who are doing the right thing here and that the Dems are taking one for the Democratic "team". Huh?
Magox Posted December 18, 2009 Author Posted December 18, 2009 The question really wasn't about any particular bill, but I see you're hot on this healthcare topic. You're against mandatory health insurance, mostly because of the cost to taxpayers. Who do you think currently foots the bill for the uninsured? You're against tax brackets or any hard line used to separate taxpayers into groups. How do you propose taxpayers be categorized? You say there's infighting among the Dems (which you find amusing) and that's what's holding up this bill. Then you add that it's the true Conservatives who are doing the right thing here and that the Dems are taking one for the Democratic "team". Huh? yes, I am hot on this topic. To your first point, I am not advocating that nothing should be done. There are various ways to address this issue which I have gone over ad nauseum so I won't repeat them yet again. To your second point, I am for a system that gives incentives for those who strive for more. Never have I ever been involved in an office where we penalized those who made more and gave bonuses to those who were mediocre. This sort of system is destined to fail. To your third point, Did you not just read what I wrote above? I just addressed this issue, I suggest you read it again. So ya, Huh??
Recommended Posts