Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
Another way it gets used is on the only kind of welfare the US right wing likes: corporate, military-industrial welfare. For this, again the example is Israel.You might know that we give money to Israel, but did you know it comes with a lot of restrictions... such as where they can spend it? A lot of it must go back to American defense contractors on either new equipment, or to support the equipment we've already given them.

So basically, America is giving them coupons.

Heh, yeah - pretty much.

 Ouze wrote:
(edit - why even?)

I think my first assumption has always been that other posters are deep down reasonable people, even if the point the particular point they're making right now happens to be completely unreasonable. I always figure if I can just find a clear way to make the point, or give a clear set of figures that shows how they're wrong, then they'll see reason and that'll be that. It doesn't always work, obviously, and more and more I'm starting to see irrational arguments like the OP's as not just mistaken, but the product of a line of thinking that was never about forming a rational view in the first place. There's just no way of reasoning someone out of a position they never reasoned themself in to in the first place.

Which I guess is a fairly long winded way of saying that yeah, why even?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Additionally, foreign aid isn't some gift we give because "we're the good guys, yay!". Yeah, some of it is like that, but mostly we give aid because we perceive it buys us goodwill in return. For example, you probably know we give a lot of money to our "ally", Pakistan. We don't do so because we're bros, we do so because if we stop giving Pakistan and their crumbling economy and fundamentalist zealot ridden corrupt government money, they might decide to do fundraising in a different way, such as with the nuclear weapons they own. Because subtly blackmailing is what "allies" do. In other areas, it lets us extend force and influence without doing it directly, such as what we give to Israel.

This is very good point. And just to expand, it doesn't just gain goodwill and expand US influence, it also makes other countries more like a country the donor nation wants them to be. For instance, a lot of foreign is for developing and supporting schools, which is nice for the schoolkids, but it also means that the country is becoming more educated, and perhaps more importantly, educated in something other than a religious school.

Similarly, roads and bridges are all about expanding local economic activity. Often the donor nation has a direct economic interest, but even when they don't, the infrastructure development is all about the idea that more people with economic opportunities in developing countries is better for everyone.

Fly over nations that are asking for money and dump a bunch of pennies that Americans drop on the floor everyday.

 Ketara wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Of course, we have to put a bill through Congress to get funding for the action plan to form this committee.

It can't just be Congress, this is going out to every rich country that's caused pollution. So we'll also need to create a multi-national task force responsible for applying for funds in every relevant jurisidiction/political system. But before we can do that, as this is a project with international scope, we'd have to get a UN resolution on the matter passed first, with the agreement of the full G8. If any opf them disagree with the proposal, we'll negotiate and redraft until everyone is satisfied.

And that, boys and girls, is what it's like to try and do anything in any company with more than fifty employees.

Exactly.

Appeal to bureaucracy!

1. Who should reparations be paid to, global warming is a global problem, its doesn't just hit Africa. In fact the Netherlands is most at threat from sea level rises.

2. Its not just western industry that causes pollution, i9ndustry is also global and many developing countries are investing ijn heavy industry.

3. Industry is only a portion of the problem, motor transport is also a problem, many developing countries have ecologically inefficient transport systems and heavy overpopulation.

4. Deforestation is also a major factor. Should Africa and South America be paying us compenation for fething over the rainforests for quick cash and poorly managed agricultural practices.

 Orlanth wrote:
1. Who should reparations be paid to, global warming is a global problem, its doesn't just hit Africa. In fact the Netherlands is most at threat from sea level rises.

2. Its not just western industry that causes pollution, i9ndustry is also global and many developing countries are investing ijn heavy industry.

3. Industry is only a portion of the problem, motor transport is also a problem, many developing countries have ecologically inefficient transport systems and heavy overpopulation.

4. Deforestation is also a major factor. Should Africa and South America be paying us compenation for fething over the rainforests for quick cash and poorly managed agricultural practices.

That's along my line of thought. It isn't as though third world countries are paragons of enviormentalism. The governments in many of them allow insane pollution, deforestation, etc, from their own industries. I say they fine the crap out of the factories operating in their countries, no matter where the corporate headquarters of these places are and call it good.

Some of that I did not know. I'll admit I'm not very politically savy anymore. I remember as a kid not having the money to wash my clothes when I needed, and then seeing on cable ads people talking about helping the kids in Africa or wherever the current trendy spot was. I would think to myself why don't they help our people. So I'm kinda bias I guess.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are lobbying to make reparations even more punitive and require polluting companies in the private sector to step up and also pay for extreme weather-related damages.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.

 kronk wrote:

Meanwhile, environmental groups are lobbying to make reparations even more punitive and require polluting companies in the private sector to step up and also pay for extreme weather-related damages.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.

I for one welcome our new environmental overlords who seem to be able to magically create electricity to run their one of a kind non-petroleum based machinery, clothing, and transport for food. or in the words of the immortal bard: "You first co er!"

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Meanwhile, environmental groups are lobbying to make reparations even more punitive and require polluting companies in the private sector to step up and also pay for extreme weather-related damages.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.

I for one welcome our new environmental overlords who seem to be able to magically create electricity to run their one of a kind non-petroleum based machinery, clothing, and transport for food. or in the words of the immortal bard: "You first co er!"

I really like the pictures of all the people out in their plastic Kayacks protesting oil drilling. Not unlike an image of 400lb people eating bacon burgers protesting at a slaughterhouse.

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Meanwhile, environmental groups are lobbying to make reparations even more punitive and require polluting companies in the private sector to step up and also pay for extreme weather-related damages.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.

I for one welcome our new environmental overlords who seem to be able to magically create electricity to run their one of a kind non-petroleum based machinery, clothing, and transport for food. or in the words of the immortal bard: "You first co er!"

I really like the pictures of all the people out in their plastic Kayacks protesting oil drilling. Not unlike an image of 400lb people eating bacon burgers protesting at a slaughterhouse.

Hey. Hey now. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They could've been made up of 10% recycled materials.

You had to mention the B word didn't you. Mmmmm

 Frazzled wrote:
You had to mention the B word didn't you. Mmmmm

It's a new addition to the Dakka Bingo card.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Meanwhile, environmental groups are lobbying to make reparations even more punitive and require polluting companies in the private sector to step up and also pay for extreme weather-related damages.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pull the other one. It has bells on it.

I for one welcome our new environmental overlords who seem to be able to magically create electricity to run their one of a kind non-petroleum based machinery, clothing, and transport for food. or in the words of the immortal bard: "You first co er!"

I really like the pictures of all the people out in their plastic Kayacks protesting oil drilling. Not unlike an image of 400lb people eating bacon burgers protesting at a slaughterhouse.

Hey. Hey now. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They could've been made up of 10% recycled materials.

Perhaps, sir, but what about all that bottled water, eh?

What do you expect people to do? Drink from the tap? Eugh, I read a post on FaceBook that tap water has more carcinogens than your toilet seat. And obviously there is no Cyanide in this bottle of SmartWater. *Takes a sip* Ahh. $3 well spent.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What do you expect people to do? Drink from the tap? Eugh, I read a post on FaceBook that tap water has more carcinogens than your toilet seat. And obviously there is no Cyanide in this bottle of SmartWater. *Takes a sip* Ahh. $3 well spent.

So you haven't actually checked out whats in bottled water then I take it. You might be in for a bit of a shock.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What do you expect people to do? Drink from the tap? Eugh, I read a post on FaceBook that tap water has more carcinogens than your toilet seat. And obviously there is no Cyanide in this bottle of SmartWater. *Takes a sip* Ahh. $3 well spent.

If the toilet is good enough for my dogs, then by golly, it's good enough for me and my guests! Didn't you mean $3, well, spent?

 Orlanth wrote:
1. Who should reparations be paid to, global warming is a global problem, its doesn't just hit Africa.

Read the article. "They want additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a "displacement coordination facility" for refugees."

The 'reparations', which is basically just a politically charged name and nothing like what's actually being discussed, would be a fund that would be paid to countries suffering weather related disasters, and who are required to manage refugee flows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you haven't actually checked out whats in bottled water then I take it. You might be in for a bit of a shock.

How can you sugget my bottled water could be anything but straight from Mother Gaia? It has a picture of a mountain on it!

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
1. Who should reparations be paid to, global warming is a global problem, its doesn't just hit Africa.

Read the article. "They want additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a "displacement coordination facility" for refugees."

The 'reparations', which is basically just a politically charged name and nothing like what's actually being discussed, would be a fund that would be paid to countries suffering weather related disasters, and who are required to manage refugee flows.

OK. That's cool. Giving money to poor people. Refugees. I can see that, it's an OK plan. Let's like call it like Plan B... maybe? How about and this I think is a better idea: They send us money. Then we use the money they sent us to buy guns. Then we us the guns to shoot holes in the like the global warming stuff, because it can't like hold in heat with holes in it. Simple stuff, it works. Thing with holes can't hold in anything. They get less global warming, we guns, we don't have to pay anyone. It's flawless really, I dunno why they aren't executing on this common sense stuff.

 Frazzled wrote:
You had to mention the B word didn't you. Mmmmm

Ah the B word. I remember how it was used to torture.

 Frazzled wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What do you expect people to do? Drink from the tap? Eugh, I read a post on FaceBook that tap water has more carcinogens than your toilet seat. And obviously there is no Cyanide in this bottle of SmartWater. *Takes a sip* Ahh. $3 well spent.

So you haven't actually checked out whats in bottled water then I take it. You might be in for a bit of a shock.

It's often just the tap water we already paid for put through a filter and sold right back to us. Bottled water is a big scam built on the assumptions that tap water is dirtier. Unless local conditions state otherwise tap water is regulated heavier in the US than bottled. It's really hilarious how successful the industry is. Btw, Evian is an anagram for naive.

Back to the main topic, I think setting up a general disaster relief fund for any nation struck by extreme weather would probably be the best solution all around. We already have such mechanisms in place but having a gesture named specifically to address the issue would help placate lesser developed nations who feel victimized by rich nations and their carbon emissions.

CL has the way of it. Bottled water is made of...TAPWATER!

We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

 d-usa wrote:
We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

Excellent. In the words of the Frazzled senior to all his fellow racers on the times he lost: " those guys. Hey get me a beer out of the cooler would you?"
...mmm sweet memories of babyhood.

 d-usa wrote:
We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

Why would they expect us to pay up now if we didn't before when we said we would?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

Why would they expect us to pay up now if we didn't before when we said we would?

Because they want to make it binding via treaty if I am reading it right.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What do you expect people to do? Drink from the tap? Eugh, I read a post on FaceBook that tap water has more carcinogens than your toilet seat. And obviously there is no Cyanide in this bottle of SmartWater. *Takes a sip* Ahh. $3 well spent.

So you haven't actually checked out whats in bottled water then I take it. You might be in for a bit of a shock.

It's often just the tap water we already paid for put through a filter and sold right back to us. Bottled water is a big scam built on the assumptions that tap water is dirtier. Unless local conditions state otherwise tap water is regulated heavier in the US than bottled. It's really hilarious how successful the industry is. Btw, Evian is an anagram for naive.

Back to the main topic, I think setting up a general disaster relief fund for any nation struck by extreme weather would probably be the best solution all around. We already have such mechanisms in place but having a gesture named specifically to address the issue would help placate lesser developed nations who feel victimized by rich nations and their carbon emissions.

Not any more it isn't. During the Bush (Dubya) administration, when the EPA had its teeth pulled, the levels of chemicals like arsenic allowed in tap water have increased significantly while regulations on how much of such is allowed to be in tap water have been significantly relaxed.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It's often just the tap water we already paid for put through a filter and sold right back to us. Bottled water is a big scam built on the assumptions that tap water is dirtier. Unless local conditions state otherwise tap water is regulated heavier in the US than bottled. It's really hilarious how successful the industry is. Btw, Evian is an anagram for naive.

It's built around the simple trick to human psychology that very cheap things can't possibly be good. Water is close to free, so it must have something wrong with it.

 d-usa wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We do already have the mechanism. But part of the reason countries are asking for this is because in the past we have pledged support via that mechanism and then failed to honor those pledges.

Why would they expect us to pay up now if we didn't before when we said we would?

Because they want to make it binding via treaty if I am reading it right.

Right, now why would we, and why should we, do that?