HisSelf Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 yes, and george bush is loved and applauded the world over. keep spreading this garbage and you may find someone, somewhere, who will actually think it's true. good luck! Ha ha. Love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Only in the eyes of the Canadian media. That link was from a UK paper genius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 A long time ago, young, I paddled down the Oxtongue River and wound up in Mary Lake - if memory serves.The roads will be easy to control but I feel sorry for those security guys who will have to walk through the woods getting eaten alive. I once went up a tributary of the Satween on a border patrol agent shift change boat from Chiang Mai into Burma and I have to say it's the same there, although these guys were taking fares from local farmers to ride through the boundary with their sacks of uninspected whatevers. Everybody was more focussed on not getting wet. Mind you, this was not at 'harvest' season, when a sane man would be safely ensconced in Bangkok. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Since I don't how to post a link to a picture I saved to my desktop, open this link and view a picture of Bush and Harper taken at a G8 working lunch. It is the fourth picture down. You can't miss it. http://www.g8summit-photogallery.mofa.go.j...o/en/index.html Bush looks quite put off. I would love to know what brought on that facial expression. Where is that open mike when you need it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Harper has promise a 50% decrease in emissions by 2050! In other words, let someone else take care of it. If he had also promised a 1.2% reduction every year starting now, which would get him that 50% I would be all for it (although the steps to get there would be a good deal harder than a green shift). But 50% of what? In 42 years? Give me a break. What's next, a 50% tax break by 2050? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Harper has promise a 50% decrease in emissions by 2050!In other words, let someone else take care of it. If he had also promised a 1.2% reduction every year starting now, which would get him that 50% I would be all for it (although the steps to get there would be a good deal harder than a green shift). But 50% of what? In 42 years? Give me a break. What's next, a 50% tax break by 2050? Emissions are not the issue - its the killing of nature - greenery that cools is being killed and not managed or loved or cared for - cities are heating pads that are like furnaces..it is the stewardship of greenery that is the answer not some silly monitary guided gas duping about emissions which is turning into a god damn religion and a false one at that..you have to water the damned plants...if you know wnat I mean///AND also feeding bio fuels to cars is bizzare - why would you take human food and feed it to a damne machine...have we lost it? ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Harper has promise a 50% decrease in emissions by 2050! I like that. Kyoto been their feet wiping mat and near swear word, when real result are to be delivered, and now they turn around and glorify the fuzzy agreement to achieve some fuzzy targets (what's the base year??) somewhere in the fuzzy future. Go figure. Except its as obvious as clear water in the lake to anybody who cares to think. The folks aren't interested in real results. They want your votes, badly. And they'll say anything you want to get them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 I like that. Kyoto been their feet wiping mat and near swear word, when real result are to be delivered, and now they turn around and glorify the fuzzy agreement to achieve some fuzzy targets (what's the base year??) somewhere in the fuzzy future. Go figure.Except its as obvious as clear water in the lake to anybody who cares to think. The folks aren't interested in real results. They want your votes, badly. And they'll say anything you want to get them. I read the Kyoto Accord. It was a hard slog in spots and I freely admit I'm not a lawyer and found some of the language convoluted. Still, I didn't see ANY guarantee of real results! Just emission credit money transferring wealth and the major polluting nations being exempt from any action. Perhaps you could be good enough to tell me precisely what words I missed? You seem quite definite that the Accord has such guarantees and I would appreciate the education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Perhaps you could be good enough to tell me precisely what words I missed? You seem quite definite that the Accord has such guarantees and I would appreciate the education. It had a target. Specific measurable target in the set timeframe. Something the new glorious initiative doesn't. What else can be added? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 It had a target. Specific measurable target in the set timeframe. Something the new glorious initiative doesn't. What else can be added? A real firm target? Something realistic for every country that pollutes? Again, I must have missed that. Could you enlighten me? I'm sure you read and understood the Accord better than I did. You must be able to cite for me the passage that I missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 A real firm target? Something realistic for every country that pollutes? Whenever a straight question's asked, you simply know it's the time to expect stretch and twist. "Realistic", "every" and so on. We know that there was a real specific target for this particular country. What else are you curious to know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Whenever a straight question's asked, you simply know it's the time to expect stretch and twist. "Realistic", "every" and so on. We know that there was a real specific target for this particular country. What else are you curious to know? What did the Liberals do to meet it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Who's in the Sussex drive now? Edited July 9, 2008 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Who's in the Sussex drive now? How long will this broken tune be played? Or would you have it both ways: something good happens - my merit, nothing's done - blame them Liberals; easy, except becomes easily boring and everybody can see through. Whats the ideal temperature of the planet Earth? What is the ideal CO2 level? There are really so many unanswered questions. Why should we destroy the economy because of it? Edited July 9, 2008 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Unless we're talking about this kind of Purely Oral lidership:Harper on developed world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Whenever a straight question's asked, you simply know it's the time to expect stretch and twist. "Realistic", "every" and so on. We know that there was a real specific target for this particular country. What else are you curious to know? You're not going to answer me, are you? I read the damn thing and I don't see what you claim is there. I ask you to cite or quote the relevant wording and you just accuse me of "stretch and twist". Until you give me good reason to do otherwise, I'm NOT going to believe your original premise about the Accord! So far you've given me no reason to even believe you've read the damn thing. It's postings like yours that prompted me to go look up the Accord in the first place. If I'm wrong, please show me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 OMG did you really have to say that? Now I'm not going to sleep, knowing full well that you won't trust me anymore... sniff.. BTW I was so sad that I just typed this secret phrase: "Canada Kyoto target" (make sure to type exactly as shown) into my browser window (it said something like Doodle ... or Noodle??) and it came up with some numbers... which may answer some of your questions... so sorry...can't talk anymore... bye, now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 OMG did you really have to say that? Now I'm not going to sleep, knowing full well that you won't trust me anymore... sniff..BTW I was so sad that I just typed this secret phrase: "Canada Kyoto target" (make sure to type exactly as shown) into my browser window (it said something like Doodle ... or Noodle??) and it came up with some numbers... which may answer some of your questions... so sorry...can't talk anymore... bye, now. Well, I'm now pretty sure that you've never read the thing and you just talk through your hat. Kinda smarmy to tell me that I should do the googling to prove YOUR point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Read ... not read ... how does that have anything to do with the fact that Canada had real specific Kyoto targets? Yes or no? Or try another diversion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Read ... not read ... how does that have anything to do with the fact that Canada had real specific Kyoto targets? Yes or no? Or try another diversion? That's it! Enough of feeding the troll. Time for the "ignore" button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Wait! In the rash to run, you forgot to answer the question. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Wait! In the rash to run, you forgot to answer the question. Again. Are you serious? Perhaps, before demanding that others answer your questions, you should do the polite thing and address the ones they asked you first. To you it was said: Again, I must have missed that. Could you enlighten me? I'm sure you read and understood the Accord better than I did. You must be able to cite for me the passage that I missed. Can you or can you not cite a passage from the Kyoto Accord that supports your claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Are you serious? Perhaps, before demanding that others answer your questions, you should do the polite thing and address the ones they asked you first. To you it was said: Can you or can you not cite a passage from the Kyoto Accord that supports your claims? I wouldn't waste your energy. This poster obviously has decided that if he can't win by the rules he'll just try to be a great smartass. He's become the equivalent of a PeeWee Herman - "I know you are but what am I?" Perhaps he'll try a different tack with you but I doubt it. I just put him on my "ignore" list, same as I did posters like "Chauchee". Life's too short. Time to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Are you serious? Perhaps, before demanding that others answer your questions, you should do the polite thing and address the ones they asked you first. To you it was said: This was the first statement made in the context of the exchange: "It had a target. Specific measurable target in the set timeframe. Something the new glorious initiative doesn't. What else can be added? " Which was challenged, without any substantiation. Substantiation that I can ask one more time, if you like: did Canada have specific, numerical target under Kyoto accord? Please feel free to investigate. I'll lend you as much time as I could spare (can't promise much - but check with your logic / language (in the area of basic reading comprehension) instructor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 It comforts me at night that people like Myata cannot STAND that Harper is PM. It warms the cockles of my heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.