Bush's European Tour...
- Thread starter p_p_man
- Start date
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
I don't have the time.
Just Bash him! By now, we know what we are supposed to say and think about him, a helpless, happless, stupid, rustic, fool at best. Which is what I would do if I wanted to snooker someone who knew they were smarter than me!
Just Bash him! By now, we know what we are supposed to say and think about him, a helpless, happless, stupid, rustic, fool at best. Which is what I would do if I wanted to snooker someone who knew they were smarter than me!
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Don't give half the story. What are they protesting? Bush or his anti-missle treaty policies? Or did they miss the bus and are just now protesting capital punishment? Whoopee freaking do if they're protesting. Protestors, on the whole, are generally ignored as whacked out freakjobs who have no real life, unless of course, it's accompanied by an explanation of issues.
Do I really care if 25,000 whacked out freakjobs who have no real life are protesting Bush himself? It's not like the man actually does the legislating in this country. That's done by a Democratically controlled Congress. Perhaps the freakjobs should go there and protest. Or does that cost more than their beliefs?
In any case. If you want them to be protestors, not freakjobs, then give accompanying explanations. What are they protesting, his wardrobe? His hair style? His rotten kids? His choice of in flight beverages?
It's lovely to gloat about how a man gets protested everywhere he goes, but not so lovely to have to explain why and then consequently have to defend it.
Do I really care if 25,000 whacked out freakjobs who have no real life are protesting Bush himself? It's not like the man actually does the legislating in this country. That's done by a Democratically controlled Congress. Perhaps the freakjobs should go there and protest. Or does that cost more than their beliefs?
In any case. If you want them to be protestors, not freakjobs, then give accompanying explanations. What are they protesting, his wardrobe? His hair style? His rotten kids? His choice of in flight beverages?
It's lovely to gloat about how a man gets protested everywhere he goes, but not so lovely to have to explain why and then consequently have to defend it.
Havocman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 26, 1999
- Posts
- 573
lavender said:
OH! See from all of p_p_man's updates I thought these were people pissed off that Bush was coming to town...
lavender said:
I don't know for sure how things work in the Empire, but here in the colonies SOME is generally considered less than MANY...
lavender said:
So other Earthlings are pissed off at the US *shock, gasp, horror*
*Yawn* So what else is new? Got a gripe against the US? Take a number.
lavender said:
OH!!!! Now I get it...all those people tearing the hell outta downtown Seattle back in '99 were protesting the future administration of Bush...A year and a half before the election...
Havoc the Nonplussed
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
Havocman said:
Exactly, Havoc. Is this some kind of news? The U.S. is the world's only remaining superpower. The global political dynamic has shifted largely from U.S/Western Europe vs. USSR/Eastern Europe to USA against all. Of course we still have our allies, but without a common enemy to be allied against there's a lot more direct competition between the U.S. and its allies.
I'm also unsure what exactly PP is seeking to accomplish with his diligent daily "reporting" of this news story. Sometimes I'm almost tempted to think that he likes the fact that Bush is being protested.
I can't understand it either.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Sorry. I didn't think I'd have to explain...
...considering it was Sweden. They're protesting against Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement.
Anyway it's now 23.19pm British Summer Time 14 June and nothing serious happened. The protesters are gathering again tomorrow but by that time Bush will be on his way again.
In fact we're beginning to wonder why he bothered coming here at all.
...considering it was Sweden. They're protesting against Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement.
Anyway it's now 23.19pm British Summer Time 14 June and nothing serious happened. The protesters are gathering again tomorrow but by that time Bush will be on his way again.
In fact we're beginning to wonder why he bothered coming here at all.
KillerMuffin said:
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Latest Press Report before tomorrows papers...
Bush has said this evening that America wants a strong Europe.
European press is preparing tomorrows headlines along the line that America (not Bush but America) is now more distrusted by Europe than at any other time in our jont histories.
All I'm doing is giving the European perspective because some people (notably those that support Bush) seem to be stuck in a time warp where the US was still able to control events unchallenged.
Whether I like Bush being protested against is neither here nor there. The point is that he has irritated Europe (even on such a small point as only spending a few hours over here attending what is laughably called a "Summit"). And I thought you may find it useful to have another perspective on the visit other than you're own.
Hardliners in the UK tend to be blinkered exactly the same as anywhere else. On this BB I'm reporting these little press headlines in order that another view is there for the reading. Nobody has to.
As this "tour" is over in a couple of days there won't be much more to write about it. In fact there's hasn't been much to write about anyway...Bush entered a country, had a coffee and sandwich said hello to the Head of State and whisked out again...
Oliver Clozoff said:
Of course we still have our allies, but without a common enemy to be allied against there's a lot more direct competition between the U.S. and its allies.
I'm also unsure what exactly PP is seeking to accomplish with his diligent daily "reporting" of this news story. Sometimes I'm almost tempted to think that he likes the fact that Bush is being protested.
I can't understand it either.
Bush has said this evening that America wants a strong Europe.
European press is preparing tomorrows headlines along the line that America (not Bush but America) is now more distrusted by Europe than at any other time in our jont histories.
All I'm doing is giving the European perspective because some people (notably those that support Bush) seem to be stuck in a time warp where the US was still able to control events unchallenged.
Whether I like Bush being protested against is neither here nor there. The point is that he has irritated Europe (even on such a small point as only spending a few hours over here attending what is laughably called a "Summit"). And I thought you may find it useful to have another perspective on the visit other than you're own.
Hardliners in the UK tend to be blinkered exactly the same as anywhere else. On this BB I'm reporting these little press headlines in order that another view is there for the reading. Nobody has to.
As this "tour" is over in a couple of days there won't be much more to write about it. In fact there's hasn't been much to write about anyway...Bush entered a country, had a coffee and sandwich said hello to the Head of State and whisked out again...
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
An interesting fact. Can anyone name the countries who have actually, in the past 4 years that they've had it, managed to ratify the Kyoto thing? This includes the much more Euro-popular Clinton who never managed it. 55 countries are required to ratify this Kyoto Protocol before it can be considered legally binding. It's been 4 years. It's not legally binding. 55 countries is not that large a number considering the amount of countries involved in the United Nations. And the hold up would be the US? Or is the EU not ratifying this thing either? Well?
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Nobody yet but the rest of us are still...
...doing what we can...
I've copied this piece from the New Scientist from the netscape search engine which gives a broader picture of the sense of betrayal the world feels...
THE US appears to have gone back on its pledge to tackle global warming by limiting greenhouse gases. President George W. Bush said last week that he opposes controlling carbon emissions from power plants. But rather than kill off the faltering Kyoto Protocol, the decision may force the rest of the world to go it alone and seal an agreement without American cooperation.
The protocol, agreed in 1997, commits industrial countries to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. But the world's nations failed to agree on how to achieve this when they met in Amsterdam last year (New Scientist, 2 December 2000, p 4). The next round of talks will take place in Bonn, Germany in July.
But Bush's new position might convince other countries there is no point in waiting for the US to fall into line. "I don't think it will kill the negotiations, because there are a lot of countries committed to the Kyoto Protocol. But it might kill any US influence in how the rules are drawn up," says Eileen Claussen, of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who handled climate negotiations in the early years of Clinton's administration.
In an open letter to four Republican senators, Bush said last week that power companies should not be forced to control CO2 emissions because this would drive up the cost of electricity. This reverses the position Bush took on controlling emissions when campaigning for the presidency.
Bush's letter cites a recent Department of Energy study, which shows that limiting CO2 would force utilities to switch from using coal to more expensive natural gas. By 2010, average electricity prices could rise by 40 per cent, according to the study.
Environmentalists and officials from Britain, Sweden, France, the European Union and elsewhere immediately criticised Bush's announcement. "The US, the country with the greatest output of emissions that cause global warming, would bear a heavy responsibility for casting doubt on an accord unanimously approved by the international community," French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet said in a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency. "It would be unfortunate if this did represent a change of policy by the US, which agreed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997," says William Mach, a spokesman for Britain's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The US is the world's largest single contributor to greenhouse gases, emitting about 25 per cent of the total. In 1999, according to the EPA, the US produced 5558 billion kilograms of CO2, over 1700 billion kilograms of which came from coal-fired power plants.
But Claussen says it's possible the rest of the world will decide to go ahead with climate negotiations without the US. The Kyoto Protocol will go into effect once countries producing 55 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions agree. That could happen if every country except the US, Canada and Australia sign on. Bill Hare, who represented Greenpeace at the Amsterdam talks, thinks there is a 50:50 chance that other countries will reach an agreement without the US.
But Klaus TÖpfer, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, says that an agreement without the US would be fatally weakened. "The US is needed. It is responsible for up to 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," TÖpfer told New Scientist. He thinks Bush can be persuaded that it will be cheaper to limit emissions now rather than pay for the long-term environmental problems it will cause.
Already, Bush is facing political opposition at home. Last week a cross-party group of four senators introduced a bill that would require power plants to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2007.
...doing what we can...
KillerMuffin said:
I've copied this piece from the New Scientist from the netscape search engine which gives a broader picture of the sense of betrayal the world feels...
THE US appears to have gone back on its pledge to tackle global warming by limiting greenhouse gases. President George W. Bush said last week that he opposes controlling carbon emissions from power plants. But rather than kill off the faltering Kyoto Protocol, the decision may force the rest of the world to go it alone and seal an agreement without American cooperation.
The protocol, agreed in 1997, commits industrial countries to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. But the world's nations failed to agree on how to achieve this when they met in Amsterdam last year (New Scientist, 2 December 2000, p 4). The next round of talks will take place in Bonn, Germany in July.
But Bush's new position might convince other countries there is no point in waiting for the US to fall into line. "I don't think it will kill the negotiations, because there are a lot of countries committed to the Kyoto Protocol. But it might kill any US influence in how the rules are drawn up," says Eileen Claussen, of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who handled climate negotiations in the early years of Clinton's administration.
In an open letter to four Republican senators, Bush said last week that power companies should not be forced to control CO2 emissions because this would drive up the cost of electricity. This reverses the position Bush took on controlling emissions when campaigning for the presidency.
Bush's letter cites a recent Department of Energy study, which shows that limiting CO2 would force utilities to switch from using coal to more expensive natural gas. By 2010, average electricity prices could rise by 40 per cent, according to the study.
Environmentalists and officials from Britain, Sweden, France, the European Union and elsewhere immediately criticised Bush's announcement. "The US, the country with the greatest output of emissions that cause global warming, would bear a heavy responsibility for casting doubt on an accord unanimously approved by the international community," French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet said in a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency. "It would be unfortunate if this did represent a change of policy by the US, which agreed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997," says William Mach, a spokesman for Britain's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The US is the world's largest single contributor to greenhouse gases, emitting about 25 per cent of the total. In 1999, according to the EPA, the US produced 5558 billion kilograms of CO2, over 1700 billion kilograms of which came from coal-fired power plants.
But Claussen says it's possible the rest of the world will decide to go ahead with climate negotiations without the US. The Kyoto Protocol will go into effect once countries producing 55 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions agree. That could happen if every country except the US, Canada and Australia sign on. Bill Hare, who represented Greenpeace at the Amsterdam talks, thinks there is a 50:50 chance that other countries will reach an agreement without the US.
But Klaus TÖpfer, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, says that an agreement without the US would be fatally weakened. "The US is needed. It is responsible for up to 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," TÖpfer told New Scientist. He thinks Bush can be persuaded that it will be cheaper to limit emissions now rather than pay for the long-term environmental problems it will cause.
Already, Bush is facing political opposition at home. Last week a cross-party group of four senators introduced a bill that would require power plants to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2007.
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
Re: Latest Press Report before tomorrows papers...
I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual.
We've had at least some European countries on our side from the time of the Revolution to the present. I guess I'm just irked that you display such obvious glee at the prospect this European mistrust of the US and the protest of Bush.
Exactly what time is it that Americans have warped to, PP? There has never been a time in history in which the US has had the ability to "control events unchallenged" that you claim. We're an independent nation with an isolationist streak that I think is too often misinterpreted as unilateralism. America has been the single most powerful nation in the world for the last 60 years or so, but even at our post-WWII zenith of power we have been largely beholden to its allies and continue to be today.
I don't know that it's the Americans who are time-warping here. England has never seemed to get over what psychiatrists call a "phallic injury": you just can't get over the fact that the sun finally did set on the British Empire. Sure England is a nice place to visit these days with lovely gardens, guys in powdered wigs, and red-coated guards, but it's just not a world power. It's hard to go from an ass-kicking empire to a quaint tourist destination like Spain, isn't it?
But all is not lost for the Brits! "Finally we have our solution. If we swallow our pride make nice with the rest of Europe we have a chance to reclaim our past glory. No more second-rate nation status!"
No? Why the incessant mention of the ascendency of EU as a US rival (even *gasp* a superior)? Why trade trade in your beloved Union Jack for the new flag of the EU? The answer is simple. This is not the dissolution of nationalism, but its affirmation. Europe. You're just replacing several small nationalisms with a larger one.
Fine. But let's call a spade a spade here. This is a chance for Europe to try to act together and finally put the US "in its place". Again, fine. But what you call "another perspective" smells like embryonic nationalist rhetoric to me.
The country that has the most to lose by any treaty of this kind is obviously the one most restricted by its terms. In the case of Kyoto, this is the US. We are the world's largest industrial producer and thus stands to lose the most economically if the strict environmental standards of Kyoto are mandated.
Consider the hard spot Bush is in: if he rejects Kyoto he protects the economy and pisses off Europe (and worst of all, we lit regulars have to endure these European "perspectives"). If he accepts Kyoto, however, he's still probably not liked by Europe (because he's still a stupid xenophobic rube unduly appointed to the Presidency by a politically-motivated court of Justices appoint by his daddy and Reagan) AND he's pinned with the blame of an economic downturn at home (which will surely sound the death knell for his hopes of a second term).
Tough predictament? Not really. Exactly what does GWB have to gain by kissing Europe's ass here? To paraphrase a high-school wrestling coach of mine, GWB "may be dumb, but he sure ain't stupid" - Europeans don't vote in US elections and I don't think think he's willing to roll the dice to win a global popularity contest at the expense of his constituency. Say what you will about him but he knows where his political bread is buttered...
and it sure ain't in Europe.
p_p_man said:
I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual.
We've had at least some European countries on our side from the time of the Revolution to the present. I guess I'm just irked that you display such obvious glee at the prospect this European mistrust of the US and the protest of Bush.
Exactly what time is it that Americans have warped to, PP? There has never been a time in history in which the US has had the ability to "control events unchallenged" that you claim. We're an independent nation with an isolationist streak that I think is too often misinterpreted as unilateralism. America has been the single most powerful nation in the world for the last 60 years or so, but even at our post-WWII zenith of power we have been largely beholden to its allies and continue to be today.
I don't know that it's the Americans who are time-warping here. England has never seemed to get over what psychiatrists call a "phallic injury": you just can't get over the fact that the sun finally did set on the British Empire. Sure England is a nice place to visit these days with lovely gardens, guys in powdered wigs, and red-coated guards, but it's just not a world power. It's hard to go from an ass-kicking empire to a quaint tourist destination like Spain, isn't it?
But all is not lost for the Brits! "Finally we have our solution. If we swallow our pride make nice with the rest of Europe we have a chance to reclaim our past glory. No more second-rate nation status!"
No? Why the incessant mention of the ascendency of EU as a US rival (even *gasp* a superior)? Why trade trade in your beloved Union Jack for the new flag of the EU? The answer is simple. This is not the dissolution of nationalism, but its affirmation. Europe. You're just replacing several small nationalisms with a larger one.
Fine. But let's call a spade a spade here. This is a chance for Europe to try to act together and finally put the US "in its place". Again, fine. But what you call "another perspective" smells like embryonic nationalist rhetoric to me.
The country that has the most to lose by any treaty of this kind is obviously the one most restricted by its terms. In the case of Kyoto, this is the US. We are the world's largest industrial producer and thus stands to lose the most economically if the strict environmental standards of Kyoto are mandated.
Consider the hard spot Bush is in: if he rejects Kyoto he protects the economy and pisses off Europe (and worst of all, we lit regulars have to endure these European "perspectives"
). If he accepts Kyoto, however, he's still probably not liked by Europe (because he's still a stupid xenophobic rube unduly appointed to the Presidency by a politically-motivated court of Justices appoint by his daddy and Reagan) AND he's pinned with the blame of an economic downturn at home (which will surely sound the death knell for his hopes of a second term). Tough predictament? Not really. Exactly what does GWB have to gain by kissing Europe's ass here? To paraphrase a high-school wrestling coach of mine, GWB "may be dumb, but he sure ain't stupid" - Europeans don't vote in US elections and I don't think think he's willing to roll the dice to win a global popularity contest at the expense of his constituency. Say what you will about him but he knows where his political bread is buttered...
and it sure ain't in Europe.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Re: Re: Latest Press Report before tomorrows papers...
Oliver Clozoff said:
I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual.
Isn't that the kind of nananana attitude best left in the schoolyard? :-D
We've had at least some European countries on our side from the time of the Revolution to the present. I guess I'm just irked that you display such obvious glee at the prospect this European mistrust of the US and the protest of Bush.
I don't. I do confess at enjoying to prick the bubble of pomposity and arrogance that politicians and in particular Bush, display.
Exactly what time is it that Americans have warped to, PP? There has never been a time in history in which the US has had the ability to "control events unchallenged" that you claim. We're an independent nation with an isolationist streak that I think is too often misinterpreted as unilateralism. America has been the single most powerful nation in the world for the last 60 years or so, but even at our post-WWII zenith of power we have been largely beholden to its allies and continue to be today.
Your current economic strength was part built on the Bretton Woods Agreement just after the Second World War, that's a definite case in point where America controlled events unchallenged. Europe had no strength left to challenge anything.
Probably wrongly worded. I see Republicans as being held in a time warp. They, like their counterparts the Conservatives in the UK, have an annoying habit of telling everyone about past glories as though the days of glory are still with them.
I don't know that it's the Americans who are time-warping here. England has never seemed to get over what psychiatrists call a "phallic injury": you just can't get over the fact that the sun finally did set on the British Empire. It's hard to go from an ass-kicking empire to a quaint tourist destination like Spain, isn't it?
My point exactly. That's how our Conservatives think and I'm beginning to understand that your Republicans have the same identity problem with today's shifting alliances.
Why the incessant mention of the ascendency of EU as a US rival (even *gasp* a superior)? Why trade in your beloved Union Jack for the new flag of the EU? The answer is simple. This is not the dissolution of nationalism, but its affirmation. Europe. You're just replacing several small nationalisms with a larger one.
I have never said otherwise. I believe passionately in a United Europe (have done for 40 years when it was even unfashionable in the UK to voice such opinions) and I would like ideally to see a United World, but as that won't happen in my day, Europe makes a good beginning.
This is a chance for Europe to try to act together and finally put the US "in its place". Again, fine. But what you call "another perspective" smells like embryonic nationalist rhetoric to me.
Europe is vying to be the strongest economic power on the planet for this century and maybe the next. The whole world is forming new groups...The SE Asian area (the Pacific basin which includes Australia), Europe (including the old East European blocs), the Eastern area which brings in China. These groupings have been going on for some time (Europe alone has been in negotiations for 60 years). It's true that even at this early stage of a possible Federal States of Europe there is a new feeling over here of integration, but is that wrong?. Even Bush (which I mentioned on a previous post) said the USA wants a strong Europe.
Or is it a matter of being a strong Europe unless it steps on America's toes...?
The country that has the most to lose by any treaty of this kind is obviously the one most restricted by its terms. In the case of Kyoto, this is the US. We are the world's largest industrial producer and thus stands to lose the most economically if the strict environmental standards of Kyoto are mandated.
But looking at it from Europes point of view, and the rest of the world by the sounds of it, America is leaving it to the rest of us to try and do something about the Greenhouse Effect whilst you continue to pump 55% of the world's harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Without America no agreement is workable. And what I find (I won't say "we") irresponsible is that Bush's decision is a political one and has nothing to do with the environment. So if your domestic politics have a direct bearing on the way the world lives then I think the world has the right to state what we think about your domestic politics. After all it's a changing place...
Consider the hard spot Bush is in: if he rejects Kyoto he protects the economy and pisses off Europe (and worst of all, we lit regulars have to endure these European "perspectives"
I knew nothing about Bush before he became elected apart from the fact that he had a famous father. Then I watched the unfolding of Florida with, I must say some disbelief, and then I heard Bush withdrawing from Kyoto and re-forming the old defence policy. My opinions have been formed since your election and if he comes across as an arrogant, stupid xenophobic "rube" it's because he has done nothing yet for me to think otherwise.
I don't think anyone thinking clearly can blame an economic downturn on a Government that has only been in power for a few short months.
Europeans don't vote in US elections and I don't think think he's willing to roll the dice to win a global popularity contest at the expense of his constituency. Say what you will about him but he knows where his political bread is buttered...
and it sure ain't in Europe.
And that is where his basic thinking is wrong. The world is now too heavily interdependent to believe that you cannot become involved.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Bush is in Poland today...
09.06am 15 June
Where he is going to deliver a speech on how he sees the future of Europe...
1) It should be expanded far beyond it's present boundaries
2) It should recruit more ex-bloc countries into NATO, including the Baltic states. (Poland is already a member)
Nothing new there, Europe's been working towards those aims for some time now.
But at least on the face of it he's thinking along the same lines that we are...
He's meeting Putin of Russia tomorrow...
09.06am 15 June
Where he is going to deliver a speech on how he sees the future of Europe...
1) It should be expanded far beyond it's present boundaries
2) It should recruit more ex-bloc countries into NATO, including the Baltic states. (Poland is already a member)
Nothing new there, Europe's been working towards those aims for some time now.
But at least on the face of it he's thinking along the same lines that we are...
He's meeting Putin of Russia tomorrow...
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
16.56pm British Summer Time 15 June
He's speaking live in Warsaw as I type.
He's actually beginning to sound like a European!
Nothing new again but re-enforcing the hope that the wars of the past are not repeated.
That Poland's future lies in Europe.
That post communism life need not descend into chaos.
At first the audience heard him in silence but now they're beginning to applaud practically everything he says...
He's speaking live in Warsaw as I type.
He's actually beginning to sound like a European!
Nothing new again but re-enforcing the hope that the wars of the past are not repeated.
That Poland's future lies in Europe.
That post communism life need not descend into chaos.
At first the audience heard him in silence but now they're beginning to applaud practically everything he says...
Havocman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 26, 1999
- Posts
- 573
Yep, everybody loves a "Rube"...*big grin*
It's funny, he (Bush) hasn't really changed from when he set off from D.C. but as he becomes more accepted by the European audiences he faces, the more the press here say he's changing his positions...LOL...damned if you do and damned if you don't...oh well.
BTW, p_p_man, the "Economic Downturn" I believe Oliver was referring to was not the slowdown of the last year, but the probable recession that would occur here if the US signed onto and abided by The Kyoto Protocols.
Hey Ollie, nice to see you're still hanging around here too...Once more into battle, my friend?
*waving the Stars and Stripes as we cross the Delaware*
Havoc the Patriot
It's funny, he (Bush) hasn't really changed from when he set off from D.C. but as he becomes more accepted by the European audiences he faces, the more the press here say he's changing his positions...LOL...damned if you do and damned if you don't...oh well.
BTW, p_p_man, the "Economic Downturn" I believe Oliver was referring to was not the slowdown of the last year, but the probable recession that would occur here if the US signed onto and abided by The Kyoto Protocols.
Hey Ollie, nice to see you're still hanging around here too...Once more into battle, my friend?
*waving the Stars and Stripes as we cross the Delaware*
Havoc the Patriot
