Why does Cheney's 1% doctrine apply

[MikeWaters]

to terrorism, but not global warming?

Cheney has said that if a terrorist attack is thought of having 1% probability of happening we must act as if it is a certainty.

But when it comes to global warming, we need overwhelming certainty? When the entire fate of the globe is possibly at stake?

Can't wait until 2008.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

to terrorism, but not global warming?

Cheney has said that if a terrorist attack is thought of having 1% probability of happening we must act as if it is a certainty.

But when it comes to global warming, we need overwhelming certainty? When the entire fate of the globe is possibly at stake?

Can't wait until 2008.

Because combating global warming is bad for his donors, but fighting a war is good?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

to terrorism, but not global warming?

Cheney has said that if a terrorist attack is thought of having 1% probability of happening we must act as if it is a certainty.

But when it comes to global warming, we need overwhelming certainty? When the entire fate of the globe is possibly at stake?

Can't wait until 2008.

Emphasis is different. I'm not certain I understand why.

For the conservatives, and to a lesser extent libertarians, and some from the middle, direct attacks on people seem to attack vital interests. Plus, rhetoric is rhetoric, namely BS.

For liberals, people are less vital, but environmnetal issues matter more.

Perhaps, an overgeneralization is, the Right, sees terroism as a battle of good people versus bad people.

And the Left sees any potential attack on environment as an attack on its God, Mother Earth.

In reality, I believe it's just BS polemics, as is most of politics.

Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Because combating global warming is bad for his donors, but fighting a war is good?

More derision of the Right. Archaea seems to be correct in his assessment of you.

Did it ever occur to you that it's because terrorists are a threat right now? A terrorist attack right now causes immediate damage. The Twin Towers fell within minutes after being hit.

Any disastrous results of global warming won't occur for hundreds of years. The environment is important, but faced with immediate danger or very distant future danger, I'd rather the focus be on the now. Wouldn't you?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

to terrorism, but not global warming?

Cheney has said that if a terrorist attack is thought of having 1% probability of happening we must act as if it is a certainty.

But when it comes to global warming, we need overwhelming certainty? When the entire fate of the globe is possibly at stake?

Can't wait until 2008.

What exactly do you think a democrat will do differently? The rhetoic may change a little but not the policy. Recall that Kyoto was defeated by the Senante 95-0.

What are three things you think a democrat president would actually do differently? Educate me.

P.S. The answer to your question is because global warming has never killed anyone. Terrorism killed a lot of people and was still ignored for a long time. Human beings only react to crises.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

More derision of the Right. Archaea seems to be correct in his assessment of you.

Did it ever occur to you that it's because terrorists are a threat right now? A terrorist attack right now causes immediate damage. The Twin Towers fell within minutes after being hit.

Any disastrous results of global warming won't occur for hundreds of years. The environment is important, but faced with immediate danger or very distant future danger, I'd rather the focus be on the now. Wouldn't you?

I truly will never understand why those who criticize the right are viewed as being spritually and morally bankrupt (I assume this is what you mean when you say Archaea is right about me).

Funny how when I criticize the left (such as in the "Rocky Anderson sucks" post) I get no similar response from liberals.

Reasons?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I truly will never understand why those who criticize the right are viewed as being spritually and morally bankrupt (I assume this is what you mean when you say Archaea is right about me).

Funny how when I criticize the left (such as in the "Rocky Anderson sucks" post) I get no similar response from liberals.

Reasons?

Wherein did Paddy attack your moral account?

He is merely pointing out one of your blindspots, that you have one tune, and that you sing it constantly.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wherein did Paddy attack your moral account?

He is merely pointing out one of your blindspots, that you have one tune, and that you sing it constantly.

If that is a blind spot, it is one we share equally. I think I explained where I thought the moral attack came from in my post. It was an assumption, also indicated in my post. He is free to rebut it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If that is a blind spot, it is one we share equally. I think I explained where I thought the moral attack came from in my post.

I don't believe you're morally bankrupt, highly intelligent, but you have a very high opinion of yourself and very low opinion of those not sharing your opinion of yourself.

That is how you come across. Unmindful of anybody else's viewpoint, despite other persons having vastly different experiences.

Two qualities irritate me, disloyalty and arrogance. A disloyal person can never be trusted and trust is the only commodity worth having.

An arrogant person is blind to possibilities. I suppose arrogance is much less a bad quality than disloyalty.

This is why I appreciated Reagan, and Bush. They may not have been the most intelligent me to lead our country, but they were loyal, to a fault. Which meant, if they were on your side, they had your back.

In battle, that is the nature of a person you want.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I truly will never understand why those who criticize the right are viewed as being spritually and morally bankrupt (I assume this is what you mean when you say Archaea is right about me).

Funny how when I criticize the left (such as in the "Rocky Anderson sucks" post) I get no similar response from liberals.

Reasons?

I'm not saying you're spiritually or morally bankrupt. I was just pointing out how you gleefully take shots at the Right, especially the current administration. Rather than offer solutions, you criticize. Why?

As for Rocky Anderson, perhaps you should ask those that lean left why they didn't didn't say anything. I agreed with you about that.