Climate Change Treaty an Example of Liberal Beliefs
Environmentalism, Global Warming, Humor, Liberals, Media Bias, Social Issues — By Harrison on December 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm
One has to chuckle over the pathetic presentation of the “treaty” agreed upon by Obama in Copenhagen over the weekend. Nothing is legally binding and no countries promised any firm targets to really do anything. Sure, there are plenty of promises, but that’s about it. Of course, before the conference wrapped up we heard dire warning from Al Gore about there being only 50 days left to save the planet and other nonsense. But, in the end, nothing was done!
One paper summed it up best:
“The much-ballyhooed treaty promises next to nothing, other than a 100-billion-dollar slush fund for Third World dictators to ‘adapt to climate change,’ which probably involves buying mansions in southern France.”
And we had the usual suspects saying their usual empty things:
How much time was wasted, how much CO2 sent into the atmosphere, and how little was accomplished by Liberals? The answer is, like the failed Kyoto agreements during the Clinton years, a lot.
So if Liberal ideology can be summed up as a lot of effort but few results then Copenhagen is a perfect example of what we can expect until the 2010 elections when, hopefully, Democrats will get tossed out of power.
Like this post? Subscribe to the Conservative perspective of Just Politics..? via RSS or Email and enjoy great articles like this every day or spread the word with one of the share buttons below!
Related posts:
- Climate Change and the Arrogance of the U.N.
Liberals Cannot Admit to Climategate
Climate Change: Do You See a Pattern?
Global Warmers Show Me the (Taxpayer) $$$
Liberal Press Negligent in Their Fourth Estate Duties
Global Warmers, CO2, and the Outsourcing of Jobs
Tweet This
Digg This
Delicious
Stumble it
Facebook
8 Comments
i chuckled. then choked when i found out how much hillary just committed from the US taxpayer. to a group of people who gave standing ovations against capitalism and for mugabe and chavez.
any american with a sense of history and decency would have walked out of that extortion fest.
Oh yeah and the money is going to go right into the pockets of dictators and other people Democrats say they hate but yet their policies end up supporting. Go figure.
Any “deal” is going to be trumped up as a great victory that will solve everything even if in the long run it wreaks the economy; Democrats have a vested interest to paint anything that comes out of Copenhagen as an incredible moment in history. As Thomas Sowell always says, “now what?”
vulcanhammer´s last blog ..Ready to go POP!
The same thing happened with Kyoto. Bill made it seem like a big deal and let Congress kill it and moved on. It was this big charade that went on for years. Same thing now.
Of course, if the Democrats do get tossed out of power next year, then even less would get done. Isn’t that what you are advocating?
Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Who Should be Disappointed
Obama has spent more than every previous president combined; hope and change is too expensive for my tastes.
Obama spent more than any previous president combined? Where is this amnesia coming from? Are we all so forgetful of history, even if it happened a year ago?
Harrison, it is impossible to debate with you because you seek out things that only support your views, and you ignore things that conflict with them.
No, what Obama did in Copenhagen isn’t perfect, but it is a lot better than nothing. A lot of the big polluters went to that summit not planning to get anything passed, but Obama pulled something out. We should comment that. This is just another small step in a series of small steps that constitute a journey.
I will say the same about healthcare, it’s far from perfect, but its a step in a right direction. I would rather see this passed than nothing at all.
What terrifies me is your view on global warming. IT IS A FACT, whether you like it or not. IT IS HAPPENING whether you choose to believe it or not. And I’m happy that Obama got something done, that we finally have a president that is willing to fight for this issue, after having Bush for eight years that just played stupid.
By the way, here’s the socialism you so strongly argue against:
http://dailycensored.com/2009/12/23/michele-bachmann-welfare-queen/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Dailycensored+%28Daily+Censored%29
Did Bush spend too much? Absolutely he did, especially considering he was a Republican. I have said this already several times. Obama has spent far more than Bush ever did and the trends for where the budget will be over the coming years is very scary. The “stimulus” bill (of which most was pork) adds up to $3.27 trillion ($787 billion + interest according to the CBO). Bush never spent like that.
And isn’t this what we hear from people… “it’s better than nothing.” Explain how that is so? It won’t save any money (will do the opposite), will result in rationed care, and won’t cover everybody.
“Global warming” is not a fact it is a theory, there is a difference. An I’m not interested in spending trillions of dollars on a theory, especially when it is so easy to logically and factually debunk almost all “global warming” claims.
And I am no fan of Bachmann. The link you posted was interesting but there are 441 representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate and were we to spend our time looking into each one we could find something. That is not the “big picture” I am after.