Bill O'Reilly vs Geraldo Rivera - Screaming Match

[Squeezer]

Mainstream Media is all staged.

Those men have no souls.

[Ephemeral]

Kyoto was created a long time ago, way back when China and India were no where near the emitters they are today.

Besides, the fact is that the US creates 25% of the world's greenhouse gases for 4% of it's population. How can anyone expect developing countries which have nowhere near the resources as the world's richest country to even try to care when the world's richest country and largest creator of CO2 doesn't give a damn? The 'not going to do anything until the other countries do too' is a cheap stalling tactic because people are scared of change. If the US was serious, it would be quite easy to force China and India to care more. Simply say, unless you lower your levels, we will impose tariffs your products. Or if you want a carrot approach, then the US would offer superior technology as aid to help China change over it's biggest polluting industries and coal plants. Unfortunately since the US doesn't give a damn... it can't impose any tarriffs because it's such a bad producer itself, and it can't offer superior technolgy because... it has none.

It's true that a lot of business would lose out if CO2 reductions happened, but then again, a LOT MORE people would lose out if global warming is allowed to continue.

The US as you have rightly pointed out has the capacity and power to be very sufficient. America ALSO has the power, technology, and scientific prowess to seriously tackle global warming like no other country on the planet. If America doesn't take any role in it whatsoever, the world loses the #1 country that could contribute the most, and that is the failure right there.

And in case you think I'm being Anti-American here, I'm not. I'm extremely disappointed Canada for completely failing in our Kyoto commitments even though we ratified the treaty. We've dropped the ball too.


As for big tobacco, no idea why you brought that up it's a straw man argument.

So being an emerging or developing countries abdicates responsibility? Could it not be true that a developing country stands a greater chance at making real change (at less cost) than an existing country that already has polluting infrastructure in place?
As I mentioned, many of us protested 3 Mile Island and actively sought political change in the 60's and 70's against nuclear power stations. The US government responded and the US has not built a nuke station in decades. Now, it is a huge up hill battle get anyone in the US to consider safer nuke power plant such as the new pebble bed technology. A country like China does not have these obstacles to overcome.

I need no enlightenment on the greenhouse gas issue. I live virtually next to the Great Smokey Mountains National Park and we have had total devastation of this beautiful resource from acid rain.

And as I mentioned, the biggest thing a single person can do to fight greenhouse gases is to cut back on airplane flights. I, and my company, have already implemented this policy. Why is there resistant to taking personal actions like this? The convenience of flying is a price many are not willing to pay. Personally taking action takes real commitment, unlike simply throwing stones at big business and the US government. Same with the MPG of the average car sold in the US in 2006. It was the same as 1980!!! This is people demanding and buying SUV's and other gas guzzlers, it is the people at fault, not the automobile industries fault.

The tobacco industry analogy was meant to highlight the personal responsibilities vs. making it someone else’s problem issue.

[genocidal]

Seriously fuck the UN. Nobody cares what they say - they may do some good humanitarian things but their peacekeeping operations are colossal failures and they never support any kind of military action even when it's needed.

I have never once said a good thing about Bush or been in favour of the Iraq War but it was never because I felt like the UN should have some sort of say over what the US does. We give the most money, we have the military, we'll do whatever the fuck we want. If the UN doesn't like it then they should stop us. Multilateralism is nice but it's not a necessity. The UN can fucking deal with it.

[Epinephrine]

So being an emerging or developing countries abdicates responsibility? Could it not be true that a developing country stands a greater chance at making real change (at less cost) than an existing country that already has polluting infrastructure in place?
As I mentioned, many of us protested 3 Mile Island and actively sought political change in the 60's and 70's against nuclear power stations. The US government responded and the US has not built a nuke station in decades. Now, it is a huge up hill battle get anyone in the US to consider safer nuke power plant such as the new pebble bed technology. A country like China does not have these obstacles to overcome.

I need no enlightenment on the greenhouse gas issue. I live virtually next to the Great Smokey Mountains National Park and we have had total devastation of this beautiful resource from acid rain.

And as I mentioned, the biggest thing a single person can do to fight greenhouse gases is to cut back on airplane flights. I, and my company, have already implemented this policy. Why is there resistant to taking personal actions like this? The convenience of flying is a price many are not willing to pay. Personally taking action takes real commitment, unlike simply throwing stones at big business and the US government. Same with the MPG of the average car sold in the US in 2006. It was the same as 1980!!! This is people demanding and buying SUV's and other gas guzzlers, it is the people at fault, not the automobile industries fault.

The tobacco industry analogy was meant to highlight the personal responsibilities vs. making it someone else’s problem issue.

This is because unlike smoking, global warming isn't something that can be controlled by avoiding it as a private person. Just because your company doesn't fly, doesn't mean other people won't. And if those other people do, it means that your efforts were wasted, because in the end the final effects of global warming will still dawn upon you. No matter how virtuous you are as an individual, other people will not do the same nor can you make them.

A great number of people will not choose to care about global warming, because people generally care about the immediate gratification more than long term consequences (i.e. smoking, eating fatty foods, spending money vs saving money). Because it costs money to change things over, and it costs money to be energy efficient and to be enviromentally friendly, a GREAT number of people just won't care.

So no matter how much everyone else cares, as long as someone is there to spoil it, it doesn't matter. This is where government kicks in. Government is the only authority with the power to MAKE people care, by virtue of changing the laws. This means that even people who don't actually care will be forced to, and the good effects will be felt by all.

Also in many other more practical respects, it's almost impossible for a single person to effect the proper change. How is someone going to change their electricity from a coal plant to something more environmentally friendly if say they live in a place where they can't actually install a solar or wind collector? Should they just choose to stop using electricity altogether? Get real, no one is going to make that choice, and it's up to government to compel those who have the power to change things to change things.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It isn't that we're forcing the government to do something because we don't want to do it, it's because even if we DO do something individually, without government making everyone else care, the net effect of your caring is nil.


As for developing countries, I really want to see you explain where they are going to get the resources to build a ton of pebble bed nuclear plants. China is racing a full speed to build nuclear plants (more than anywhere else in the world) but it's not enough. They are also using coal on a massive scale. Unfortunately, their coal technology is 40 years old. No one's giving them better technology, and they don't have the money or incentive to buy better technology. This would be the perfect time for some technological aid (as it wouldn't really help anyone except for the environment), but no one will do it. No matter what you want, China isn't going to stop expanding or building it's plants. You simply cannot expect China to suddenly start caring about the environment, when it's people generally don't really understand it themselves (thanks to lack of education on the issues, lack of availability of public information) and those in control of the companies generally don't care.

Developing countries absolutely do not abdicate responsibility to the world, but this does not imply that rich countries are allowed to use this as an excuse to abdicate their own responsibility, or at least understand that by being responsible themselves they have much more leverage to change behaviour in the poor country though multiple means.

If the only policy is to 'do nothing and wait for other people to come around before doing anything', then that's one sad policy indeed. If the rich countries actually had the technology and the will to change things around, then they'd actually have leverage to change things. If they say to China and India 'hey guys, we're not going to do anything until you do it, even though we know that for you to change over would cost your society MUCH more than it would cost us' what do you think China and India are going to say? Open your eyes Eph.

P.S. The official position of the American government is still highly doubting global warming. I think that in itself basically tells countries like China and India that they can also deny it. If you think denying very publicly it's happening, and then 'working behind the scenes to get them to sign on' is actually going to work... you're dreaming.

[Kolar]

I find your comment and demeanor about ‘getting my feet wet’ to be condescending. I posted no insults towards you yet you seem to want to sling them back to me.

I didn't mean it to be, I just think if you find all of this whining then maybe you're just not open to other view points. I resent my personality, writing or point of view being diminished by having it tagged to other groups or mindless insults, "Anyone But Bush" for example. How have I shown I would prefer anyone but him? I dislike his policies, what he has done to the world and to the image of the West. I do not blame him completely because Rumsfeld, Rove, Chaney, Libby, Wolfowitz and more have been cooking up most of the foreign policy crap we've seen during Bush's two terms. A President as stupid and naive as Bush; be it Democrat, Republican or Independent, and we'd have the same results.

Your comment about ‘my party’ is a bad assumption on your part. You have no idea what ‘my party’ is, yet you are confident enough to assume this knowledge. (You are wrong btw, I am a registered Independent) This epitomizes many of your post’s perspectives.

I can gauge you're at least economically conservative, you're smarter and more informed then most so on a lot of issues I don't understand you all that much. I'm sorry for assuming but I thought it was pretty clear where you sit on the issues, I just hope you're not acting like O'Reilly and using the Independent or undecided crap as a shield. Just the same please stop connecting me with leftist groups and using basic Republican slurs like ABB.

Your statement about me switching topics is also misaligned. You were the one who dragged up the war issue, not me. It might escape some people, but the theme in everyone of my posts was about personal responsibilities vs. making it someone else’s problem. Sorry if I used analogies and you mistook them for ‘changing the topic’.

Actually no you said
"They have brought into ‘Me-ism’, they like capitalism, they do not want to make any sacrifices, they expect USA to fix it (even though USA did not ‘invent’ capitalism)."

By fixing what did you mean then? I thought you were clearly talking about the Afgan/Iraq issue. And on that note could you find some better material, all this about going to war over humans rights, Iraqi freedom, environmentalism had nothing to do with it, it's been shot down so many times there's nothing left in it.. All of that crap came after WMD were not found and the threat of the Iraqi military was looking more out of the dark ages and the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam was found to not exist (he actually hated Al Qaeda and disliked Iran). Environmentalism is not something the Republican base cares about anyways nor international human rights, for the Afgan and Iraq war we've made deals with far worse characters then Saddam. The "we don't know everything that's going on" is also lame and boring, it's 2007 not 2004.


Is there any chance you could concede, (just think about it even) that maybe some of these groups (Project for a New American Century) with a good number of them holding positions in the white house could have feed the President and Congress fake and misleading material and dupe them into going to war? That they themselves would push for it in some failed ideology of spreading and enforcing democracy over the middle east to extend the power and reach of the American Superpower regardless of the human and economic burden placed on the American public and her allies?

As for winning or losing the ‘debate’, this is probably the greatest misunderstanding. Apparently you are posting in an attempt to ‘win’, I was posting in an attempt to get people to see a side/perspective that they are not seeing. Only hope I had was someone saying, ‘I see your point, but I still feel that…”. There was no ‘win’ or ‘lose’ for me, only hope. Sorry for hoping.

I didn't explain all that very well sorry (had to run to catch the train). I'm not looking to win this, all I'm looking for is some give, some understanding in the face overwhelming fact. If you're just playing devils advocate on this then there's no point in continuing. If not then sorry but I can't see your point yet. Please produce some documentation stating the Iraq War was about human rights, the environment or oil. Additionally produce video/statements by the Bush Administration outlining the rational clearly stating the plan is to invade and remove Saddam for environmental damage, human rights or for Iraqi freedom. All I'm looking for is some hope that you could change your mind.

[Subjugation]

Ephemeral> YOU WANT OPEN BORDER ANARCHY!!!
Kolar> Cool your jets, buddy. This is a drunk driver issue. P.S. Death to America.

:wub:

[Reclusion]

ok so we dont enforce the law when lives arent at stake because they dont matter as much

unless you have a solid reason for why this illegal was allowed to stay in the states after they caught him

My guess is that he wasn't so much allowed to stay as he was forced to stay. The bastard killed someone while intoxicated. He will be up on murder charges.

[thesearcher]

And where do people get this crap about the US being a world leader and having the high moral ground? Is there some sort of US declaration announcing this? One way to look at this is that the US sticks it’s nose into world situations. The other way to look at it is that we get sucked into world situations. I would say the truth is somewhere in between.

America decided to leave isolationism behind after the second world war, it became instrumental to many different countries recovering economies, because to be honest, it was the only one with the capability to do so, but this was only done because at the time there was the great fear of the 'communist threat', you cant ask "where do people get this shit about America being a world leader from" when America did it to itself.

-The entire cold war
-Vietnam
-Somalia
-Afghanistan
-Iraq

You would honestly say America was 'draged' into these situations? hell no, America chose to be in these situations because it chose to tell other people how they should live, and ofcourse in iraq there was the added incentive of oil.

As for the whole "America shouldnt have to do anything about the environment if DEVELOPING countries dont" argument, thats just pretty laughable dude, do you realise the sheer number of resources America or Britain consumed when they 'developed', without some sort of technological help, how is india or china supposed to do any better. Even if those countries should be expected to do something about it, America should still be taking the first step and setting an example, considering it is still the main consumer of natural resources, and the biggest polluter.

You are right though, it should all start with the individual, in a perfect world, but the world isnt perfect, which is why we have governments and laws.

Not that I dont love America, I just cant believe the spin you are putting on things. You keep saying that people should "take responsibility", but you're living in a dream world about half the things you are discussing.

[phata$$]

A lot of text on this page. Fuck reading. I'm on Spring Break.

[Ephemeral]

Allow me to summarize my position (especially since it has been mis-represented several times).

I think that there is a ‘line’ of responsibility for most issues and this ‘line’ is vertical, not horizontal. I also feel that the ‘line’ of responsibility starts at the bottom (people), works upward through corporations, and ends at the top (government).
Applied to the original topic, the solution and responsibility of the immigration issue starts at the people level. We have to stop ‘looking the other way’ and hiring illegal immigrants to watch our kids, take care of our lawns. Also the personal level, we should not spend money with businesses that support and hire illegal immigrants. Moving up the ‘line’, small business has to do the same, further along big business has to do the same, and finally government has other responsibilities to look after. Big business needs to be thrashed for taking advantage of the illegal immigrant work force strictly for profit. Government needs to get behind this effort and police businesses. Government needs to stop trying to build big walls around the country and throwing extra resources at the problem.
The above represents a vertical line of responsibility. I feel the same vertical ‘line’ exists for the other analogies in this thread, be it CO2 greenhouse gases or tobacco/smoking analogies.

Sorry if some people think this is a 'dream world'.

[Epinephrine]

You raise an excellent point Eph. I think we should also not try and regulate things like theft or assault or even murder. I mean, it's personal responsibility. People should just know not to do it you know? Why blame the government?

[Ephemeral]

Exactly, move the responsability of raising kids with correct morals to the teachers and law enforcement people. SOunds like a good idea to me.

And while we are at it, we need no line of responsibility here in TW. Players have no responsibility to the game or community, it is all the staff’s responsibility to make sure we have no cheaters.
A individual player can do nothing at his level (what? Leave a squad because it knowingly recruits a cheater?). A squad cap or ass-cap can do nothing at his level (hey, just because it is widely known that a player named 123ABC is banned, we can not assume that a new player named 124ABC is the same guy). The damn staff needs to fix this cheating crap before it ruins the game.

[genocidal]

Canadians place way too much trust and responsibility on their government and even impotent international institutions.

[Kolar]

And while we are at it, we need no line of responsibility here in TW. Players have no responsibility to the game or community, it is all the staff’s responsibility to make sure we have no cheaters.
A individual player can do nothing at his level (what? Leave a squad because it knowingly recruits a cheater?). A squad cap or ass-cap can do nothing at his level (hey, just because it is widely known that a player named 123ABC is banned, we can not assume that a new player named 124ABC is the same guy). The damn staff needs to fix this cheating crap before it ruins the game.

If any player suspects someone is evading, double squadding or doing something they shouldn't then they should tell us. Email any of the active SMods preferablely or just send it to complaints or the bans21 email. There's no penalty not to, unlike with the Mythril issue. If you knowingly aid said player and/or withhold that information from us then it will be assessed case by case what punishment if any you deserve.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

If any player suspects someone is evading, double squadding or doing something they shouldn't then they should tell us. There's no penalty not to, unlike with the Mythril issue. If you knowingly aid said player and/or withhold that information from us then it will be assessed case by case what punishment if any you deserve.

Spying on my neighbors? I dunno, sounds an awful lot like a police state to me.