Comments on: Dept. of Those Witty Brits

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:56:02 +0000

Sally-O, one would think that guaranteeing freedom of the seas and sending armies to fight the dragons ought to figure in to who is paying for what. What’s with all this compartmentalization, anyway?

Let’s have a real balance sheet. Otherwise, why bother with line-items?

By: Sally-O

Sally-O — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 04:05:36 +0000

The double-standards when it comes to America never fails to amaze.

“TONIGHT: I hear what you say about tripling the aid to Africa, but it’s still only – it’s less than 0.2% of gross domestic national product. And that is less than what the United Nations talks about, of having 0.7%. Some European countries are moving towards that. Why can’t America?”

Get that? If America is increasing aid, even tripling it, it still doesn’t measure up to what the UN “talks about.” At the same time, some unnamed European countries get credit for “moving toward” what’s talked about even if they too haven’t achieved it.

Leaving aside the absurdity of making UN “talk” the benchmark here, why doesn’t the inteviewer similarly consider American increases to be movement toward this arbitrary number?

This reminds me of Kyoto, which the Euro-press and Euro-governments love to bash America over. If the Europeans are so keen on adhering to stricter environmental regulations, then what’s stopping them? Why don’t they start tomorrow?

By: richard mcenroe

richard mcenroe — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:19:02 +0000

I’m sorry , Roger, did you say “witty Brits” or “brittle twits?”

By: colin

colin — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:57:03 +0000

The GM comment is one of those comments that was too good to be true.(And it wasn’t).There were two “Charlie Wilson”s in the Eisenhower cabinet:”Engine Charlie”-head of GM and “Electric Charlie”-head of GE.During Engine Charlie’s confirmation hearings he was asked if he could make a decision that was good for the country,but bad for GM.He replied,”Yes,but I have trouble visualizing such a decision,because what has been good for this country has always been good for General Motors”.

My college econ teacher made a student who incorrectly quoted it get it from Congressional Record and correct it to the class.

By: PeterUK

PeterUK — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:48:18 +0000

Poor old Trev’ in the hands of the sneaky little Trots that do the research,or I should say invent the research.Sorry about this, but Trev wouldn’t know if you were still hunting buffalo and lighting your way with whale oil.Trev just reads what is put in front of him this is just a standard piece of BBC UNery.

The Beeb is a very similar organisation to the UN,a bunch of self-opinionated parasites living on other peoples money.

Happy Fourth of July,just pay the back taxes and all is forgiven

By: richard mcenroe

richard mcenroe — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:06:13 +0000

“The next John Cleese movie?” Hmmm… maybe you could be a little more sympathetic to an old fogey like Trudeau…

By: David [.net]

David [.net] — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:05:12 +0000

“Pollution” has been redfined in recent years to mean carbon dioxide. That way the black skies of east Asia don’t count. The US can then be made to be the worst polluter, and getting worse.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:59:59 +0000

ìTONIGHT [interrupting]: But is that putting American industrial economic interests above the global interests of the environment?î

Did Trevor MacDonald ask such a stupid question with a straight face? His economic ignorance is mind boggling. MacDonald fails to understand that the rest of the world would suffer horribly if Americaís economy is severely harmed. Alfred P. Sloan reportedly claimed that what was good for GM was good for America. Am I saying something similar regarding our economy in relation to the whole world? Yup, I most certainly am. The world, whether we like it or not, revolves around us.

Anyone possessing half a brain knows that horrible poverty would result if we enacted even a few of the Kyoto recommendations. The elites, however, have deluded themselves that they are economically safe and only the unwashed masses will feel the inevitable consequences.

By: richard mcenroe

richard mcenroe — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:54:30 +0000

The only possible response to that demi-witty Pom’s last statement would be a big ole Texas grin…

By: kps

kps — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:29:37 +0000

PRESIDENT BUSH: That is a totally inaccurate statement.

TONIGHT: It’s a UN figure.

I see no contradiction here.