Re: what a horse trader you are!

Posted by bobbapink on Jan 31, 2002 at 14:12 (

Re: what a horse trader you are! (DA Morgan)

Were you one of the 40% of the people on the planet so destitute and oppressed that you have never made a telephone call I would afford your comment some respect.

And if you ever made a logical argument i would afford you some respect. Note that your 40% figure concerns those that have little or no wealth, which is exactly what you propose we trading for. Why?

In fact you are one of the wealthiest, healthiest, and most technologically advanced people on the planet (by definition since you are connected to the internet).

I don't disagree. Why would you want to trade that in for joining the poorest, sickest, and most primitive people on the planet? Just so everyone could be even?

So take your whining to someone that cares.

I noticed you neglected to address the rest of my post. Why?

This complaint has been heard over and over and over again.

Then surely so has a rebuttal. Present it.

And not once has the economy disintegrated because as a result of the so-called concern.

Thatís because the concern was never realized in the form of Kyoto. So, while political remedies to concerns for mythical environmental problems have not yet resulted in the disintegration of the economy, they have certainly resulted in the death of millions upon millions of people. Is that your goal, to effect more unnecessary death and destruction?

Sort of like all of those that are "fiscally responsible" supporting the Bush administration (7.1% unemployment and deficit spending) while decrying the liberal tax and spend democrats (Clinton administration) who ran the country during its greatest decade of prosperity (4% unemployment and a surplus).

Your red herrings are rotting and your strawmen are burning. Address the argument if you can.

If you are going to make arguments ... make them with substance. (grin)

Yes dan, do that. I'll present the post again so you can address it.

Dan:I wrong all we lose is money. If right all we save is civilization. I think it a decent trade-off.

Bobba:Great! Expending valuable resources and reducing the ability to create wealth, increasing poverty and likely increasing harmful pollution, all in return for effecting a tiny global reduction of an essential trace gas on the dubious theoretical premise that doing so will prevent or slow the equally dubious occurance of global warming. And why? Because of the laughable assumption that warming would destroy civilization!

What a horse trader you are. What is that, a Ford Pinto?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]