BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: mack/misophist
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:52 PM

To forestall furute comments:

    Yes, I'm an asshole. Often but now always.
    Yes, I'm arrogant. Often, but not always.
    You can tell because my saying so makes it obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

Kioto Facts:

19 countries have signed the protocol but not ratified it. Of those eight are Annex I countries:

    * Australia (not intending to ratify)
    * Croatia
    * Liechtenstein
    * Monaco
    * Russia -- Russia has changed stances on the issue several times, with conflicting statements from various ministers. The current stance is that they will soon ratify the treaty. (see below)
    * Switzerland -- Switzerland passed the CO2 law on October 8, 1999 which should allow it to achieve its target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by the Senate but not yet by the House of Representatives. [4] (http://www.admin.ch/uvek/doku/presse/1999/d/99100802.htm) [5] (http://www.ieta.org/Library_Links/IETAEnvNews/Dec13_Swiss.htm)
    * Ukraine -- Ukraine is expected to ratify the protocol. (see below)
    * United States -- The US, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does not intend to ratify the protocol.

Some countries that have signed but not yet ratified are:
Egypt
Indonesia
Israel
Kazakhstan
Marshall Islands
Niger
Philippines
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
the Solomon Islands

Position of the United States

Summary: The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he doesn't support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

    "The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.

The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. This may change at the next change of government, as the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so.

http://encyclozine.com/Kyoto_Protocol

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 09:22 PM

Much as i despise Bush, his policies and motivations, Kerry gives me the creeps. I don't know quite what it is, but he makes me shudder something awful, like that gut reaction you get when you meet someone who later turns out to be a serial killer...
It seems, America, you have to choose between an avaricious, cold-hearted, obvious a*rsehole, and an avaricious, cold-hearted, covert a*rsehole. I don't think the election results will make anything other than a cosmetic difference...Democrats just tend to do nasty things more quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

I'm...denying that I am either arrogant or an a**hole. (Bobert)

nobody think you are an a..hole, Bobert.(McGrath)

A very elegant insult, indeed, but I'd rather say nobody thinks, you are arrogant, Bobert.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM

I believe the article says they were shot in the head. Was it with American supplied bullets?

Nerd:

Where have you been? I missed you.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:44 AM

More important is to ask your beloved what they would do without their a***hole? If they reply 'I'd miss you dear' then you have your answer.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 08:48 AM

I, for one, do not like disparaging use of the term "a**hole" or its UK equivalent, "a***hole". Those upon whom this term is used are usually not nearly as useful or important as what they are called.

Just ask yourself, "Where would I be without my a**hole?" and you'll understand its importance.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 06:42 AM

I would like to point out that we are all A**holes..It's what's built round the aforementioned articles that differentiates us from others.
Yes, I am arrogant sometimes, as I believe all men are (given the chance).
Be proud of being one Bobert....
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 05:48 AM

Well there's a fair chance that by refusing to sign the global anti pollution agreement, America as the worlds biggest polluter will contribute towards the deaths of more people than Saddam. I know Bush has refused to sign, but does anybody know whwere Kerry stands on this one? It would appear from another thread about the price of gas, that most of you worry like I do about pollution, is this concern shared by many Americans, or is it just us good clean living folkies? Surely if you get a new administration which is not hand in glove with the oil industry there will be more sympathy for the 'Green' viewpoint. I certainly hope so.
Giok.....just joining the thread creep!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 04:20 AM

Yeah, and the US has really stood by the Kurds in their time of need, Old Guy! The first massacre of Kurds in Iraq was done partly with US weapons given to Saddam by the Reagan administration.

(Newsday, 19 March 2003):

When George W. Bush talks about Saddam Hussein gassing his own people, he means the Iraqi Kurds. Bush should know, as it occurred over a three-year period in the late 1980s, while his father was president, and with the full knowledge of that administration. The weapons came, at least in part, from U.S. corporations

The second massacre of Kurds was caused by Bush's father, who urged the Kurds to rise up; thinking they'd have US support, they did. Oops! Turned out H.W. had different priorities!

(Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb 12, 2003):

Such concerns are not academic. In 1988, Iraqi airforce helicopters dropped mustard gas and nerve agents on the Kurdish town of Halabja and may even have disseminated biological agents like aflatoxin. Several thousand men, women and children were killed, and Halabja residents continue to suffer hideous health complications.

At the time, U.S. officials knew of the gassing, but the Reagan administration chose to downplay it because it supported Saddam in his war against Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. This is only one of several bitter betrayals of the Kurds by various U.S. administrations.

A prime example: George H.W. Bush urged Iraqis to rise up in 1991 and then let Saddam slaughter them when they responded. Only when CNN recorded a million desperate Kurds fleeing to Iran and Turkey did Bush establish the no-fly zone that still protects much of Iraqi Kurdistan.

So it is an outrage that U.S. officials have yet to respond to Kurdish requests for protection. All the more so when Saddam's use of poison gas against the Kurds is cited by the Bush administration as proof the Iraqi dictator must be removed.

Sounds to me like the Kurdish situation is as good a reason to keep Republicans from the White House, as to invade Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:47 AM

Amos :

Would you prefer intentional destruction of children?

"A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
        
Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick
P Willey
US investigating anthropologist"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

Saddam on trial? Hell no. It would be better if he were still running Iraq, paying off the UN France and Germany while the US and UK are charged with trying to contain him with no fly zones.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:34 AM

He's a lot more for the money that Looney Boy, OG. Unless you yearn for more years of blundering idiocies and diplomatic catastrophes, blood in the sand and more "collateral" damage of destroyed children.

No disputing taste, I guess.


A

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 10:50 PM

Thank God. John Forbes Kerry is enough.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

I know how to talk to anthills, but I tried not to be arrogant, I even did it once - I read about it in a book called, "Escher Godel & Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid' by Douglas Hofstedder - a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Literature.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 07:12 PM

Bobert, what if I really, really WANT to be an arrogant anthill??

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

Kerry's gonna win, Amos. But not by much.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

I am being an a**hole more and more as the election draws closer over here and the rabid psychonauts who want another four years of hell for all come out of the woodwork. See what I mean? Sigh. I'll be glad when Kerry wins the election, so we cansettle down and be nice guys again.

A

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 06:08 PM

Bobert is a humble asshole...

Just kidding, my man!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 05:04 PM

Rectal pore.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 04:55 PM

Asterisk hole?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Peace
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 03:14 PM

I'm an a**hole, but only infrequently arrogant. Well, maybe more than infrequently, but not quite frequently. Well, OK, I am an arrogant a**hole on even numbered days that are evenly divisible by three.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 01:52 PM

I'm sure nobody think you are an anthole, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: PoppaGator
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 01:50 PM

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Or however you'd say that in West Ginny...

Subject: BS: I am not an arrogant a**hole...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 01:30 PM

Well, I figured with the current Mudcat trend that I might as well pro-act now rather than react later so...

...I'm going on record right here and now, perhaps in respectfull disregard for prevailing Cat opinion, of denying that I am either arrogant or an a**hole.

There. That should nip that one in the bud...

Bobert