Green Party Presidential Candidate responds on Finland for Thought…
A couple weeks ago I criticized Presidential Candidate, Heidi Hautala, and the Green Party for proposing to hurt the poor and help the wealthy by increasing car taxes and focusing on small apartments rather than single-family homes. Well Heidi, demostrating her belief in “openess in politics”, has responded…
I am delighted to see that my colleague Oras and I have managed to generate a rather good debate on transport of persons! – Firstly, I´d like to answer the question marks about my own modes of transport. I live in the city center & do not have a driver´s licence.I find possessing a car a shere economic madness (parking place in the hall under my house costs 150 EUR/month). I walk, ride my bike, use public transport and taxis. I do regret sometimes that I do not have licence to drive if I need to get around in the countryside.
UPDATE: She responds once more! Her English is flawless, sounds like she’d make a fine President for Finland on an international level.
It’s cool that a presidential candidate takes time to respond to a debate like this. Makes me feel that Finland is a small country… I actually used to go to the same high school in Helsinki Heidi’d been to at the time she was Green Party leader and the teachers were really proud of what she’d become. I don’t have a driver’s licence either so I can actually identify with this candidate in many ways. As much as I like the underdog in politics, I guess my vote will go to Tarja… Ms Hautala is an important candidate, though, as she’ll help to focus on the issues in a campaign that is increasingly about personalities.
Comment by Helsinkian — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
If there wasn’t a risk for my vote being VASTED, I’d vote for Heidi for sure.
But, given that I say this, this brings up one (not the only one, but surely one of the most important ones) issue that makes the good old U.S. of A. such an EXAMPLE of non-democracy. The idea that there should be just ONE candidate elected from each region in the country, is what makes the U.S. (and the U.K. as well) real examples of non-democrasy. Countries with IDIOTIC voting systems (the U.S. has the added on problem that they don’t even manage to count the votes, however that is POSSIBLE is beyond me), such as these, shouldn’t be out there claiming they are representing DEMOCRASY. They are a disgrace, w.r.t. the concept of democrasy.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
Countries with IDIOTIC voting systems (the U.S. has the added on problem that they don???t even manage to count the votes, however that is POSSIBLE is beyond me), such as these, shouldn???t be out there claiming they are representing DEMOCRASY
Wow, we actually agree on something!
The idea that there should be just ONE candidate elected from each region in the country, is what makes the U.S.
Well, I think you mean “each party” ? The Democrats originally had 10 candidates on the primary ballot. On my ballot, I had one of seven Presidential candidates to choose from – it’s just that you only hear about the Dems and Reps.
And just like you Thomas, people don’t want to “waste” their vote on long-shots like Heidi Hautala. If enough people actually “wasted” their vote, people like Heidi could win!
The problem is the voting method. The U.S. needs approval voting or that kind where you make a list of your choices in order of preference (can’t remember the name), or some other system.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
“Wow, we actually agree on something!”
So then I’m just a semi-huge asshole, or?
“Well, I think you mean ???each party?? ? The Democrats originally had 10 candidates on the primary ballot. On my ballot, I had one of seven Presidential candidates to choose from – it???s just that you only hear about the Dems and Reps.”
NOOOO! What I mean is that one (or two) members of the senate represent ALL the voters. One representative in the parlament represents ALL voters in the region, from where he/she is elected. Why this is undemocratic should be obvious for anyone, with even a “pea for brain”. Why the people of the U.S. and the U.K. haven’t understood this is beyond me (my friends from the U.K. understood this fairly quickly, when we talked about it – but they didn’t think there was any method to solve this – traditions are important). But they (the U.s. and the U.K.) are the ones concerned about DEMOCRACY internationally (democrasy to IRAK – as the idiot leaders of the U.S. and the U.K. are proclaiming). What a laugh!
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
I don’t understand, are you talking about the house or the senate or both or ?? About every 500,000 people have its own congressmen, and of course people-per-senator can totally vary.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 9:36 pm
“I don???t understand, are you talking about the house or the senate or both or ?? About every 500,000 people have its own congressmen, and of course people-per-senator can totally vary.”
I’m talking about the very IDEA, that from every region you elect only ONE representatative. In THEORY this means that TWO people can decide who is the representative of a region whose size is unlimited. This is of course very unlikely, but if you have a region of 1000000 people represented by a person who in fact represents only 40% of the people (which is probably the situation today in the U.K), then democracy is not the word I would use to describe the order of things. In the U.S. and the U.K. this is still called democracy – for some reason which I don’t understand – and is exported (using weaponry) to the rest of the world.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
Gotcha. Well even if each congressional district had 8 reps instead of just 1, the U.S. would probably still have 50% Dems and 50% Reps. I doubt much would change except we’d have 8x the amount of crooked politicians.
Do you think 535 congressmen are enough, or do we need more? Dunno. But I agree, the Finnish system of having multiple federal-level politicians from one region is a huge improvement over the U.S. system.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 10:39 pm
What USA needs is more local political power and local EDUCATED politicians, screw the federal level. Federal level for these kinds of mammoth nations should be more like EU parliament, they got little power but not as much as US Congress or Senate.
States should be more independent because ruling 10-20 million people is about the maximum without losing touch to local affairs. Canada and Australia are great examples of doing things much better than USA with very similar background. With 290 million you got your Pretorian Guard, Imperial Power and all that crap.
USA started with about three-four million citizens and your dear Constitution (which was really brilliant at the time) is probably obsolete for 290+ million citizens.
Comment by tim73 — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 11:48 pm
“But I agree, the Finnish system of having multiple federal-level politicians from one region is a huge improvement over the U.S. system.”
The system used in Finland is a PREREQUISITE for democracy. Without it you cannot even talk about democracy, let alone export it elsewhere, as your current IDIOT president does.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jul 30th, 2005 @ 11:52 pm
What USA needs is more local political power and local EDUCATED politicians, screw the federal level. Federal level for these kinds of mammoth nations should be more like EU parliament, they got little power but not as much as US Congress or Senate.
I agree 110% – It’s a shame neither the Dems nor Reps believe this.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:44 am
Thomas – I agree, but I wonder if adding thousands more Congressmen and hundreds more Senators would really change anything?
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:45 am
Wow. The level of ignorance in Finland about how democratic representation in the US is constituted is amazing. One representative for a state? Go back to school.
The US form of democracy is an ideal model for a 290 million people state. In fact, the EU should take more lessons from that, since the current constitutional deadlock was precipitated, – essentially – by the fact that more populous states (like France) do not feel their full [considerable?] “weight” was fairly represented in the new constitution.
The US system has worked very well, and could easily work if the US expands – through immigration, mainly – to a 1 billion-sized state (there’s certainly enough room for that).
The Electoral College system – of state-bound federal level presidential candidacy – simplified the management of a large conglomerate of states, each with its own constitution. This diversity permits the building of local interests and – most significantly – helps prevent the breeding of cross-border ideologies, which are so popular and so damaging in Europe (Marxism, socialism, green parties, etc.), and which foster the necessity for coalition politics that make democracies so indecisive when faced with crises.
There was a reason why the US Constitution was made up the way it is. The founding fathers new very well what the drawbacks to democracy were: lack of decision-making power, which eventually empowered those who sought to overthrow the democratic power because of it. Classical history, – of which the founding fathers were very well aware of, more so than people today – is replete with examples of how tyrannies win the upper hand in weak republics….
In fact, the only reason that European parliamentarian democracies have been able to survive – at all – is because they’ve enjoyed the security umbrella cast by a democracy based on the US Constitution.
In our post-Nazi, post-Stalin, post-Cold War era, we have yet to see the European parliamentary democracies be tested in a real crisis, by themselves, – without support from the US.
In perhaps the first test – the Yugoslavian crisis… they failed, miserably.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 4:06 am
America is lots bigger than Finland. What works here dosent necessarry work there. Bigger senate would only be harder to manage and keep in line.
However, dividing the seats of Congress, Senate and presidential electrolate (spelling?) by percentage instead of by “winner takes all” system, would of course be improvement. As it is, a small republican area in democratic state dosent get really a change and in the end dont bother to vote. I would be under the impression that some states would be trying this in America now (or at least soon).
Thomas, Phil didnt really remark on this (sorry Phil if I understand you wrong, but apparently you try to get homely hear, maybe getting citizenship later on (?)), but apparently he tries to get native hear. And I think its rude to go “YOUR America” this and that, particulary in very offensive tone as you do. Phil didnt write the constitution, Phil isint in politics trying to change it. Making America’s situation his fault isint really that fair, is it? Seeing as Phil has in the past written stuff like “us finns”,maybe you should do “YOUR Finland” instead, eh?
Giving vote to Hautala is not waste. If Halonen dosent get in on first round (in the realm of posibility), the second might get in even with unimpressive score on the first round. As it is, Hautala is not that far behind Vanhanen and Niinist?¶. She dosent have to do better than Halonen; only better than Vanhanen (who probaply gets more votes as Niinist?¶).
Comment by Justen — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 10:42 am
“Thomas – I agree, but I wonder if adding thousands more Congressmen and hundreds more Senators would really change anything?”
You wouldn’t need to add more congressmen and senators. In fact you could keep the numbers exactly as they are, and STILL make it possible for NEW parties to establish themselves using some kind of proportional voting mechanism. The reason for republicans and democrats (in the U.S. – Labour and Conservatives in the U.K.) not wanting this is so obvious, that it needs not to be discussed. The reason for the populace in said countries, NOT to cry out for an end of this IDIOCY, is my main concern. These are the people supposed to be the INVENTORS of MODERN DEMOCRACY, and they ALLOW this travesty, year after year. They even try to force others to follow this complete FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY AS A SYSTEM at gun-point.
Would it change anything (in the U.S.)? I don’t know. A people who has allowed the current system to go on for more than a hundred years, cannot be too interested in democracy, or then they are too dumb.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
“Thomas – I agree, but I wonder if adding thousands more Congressmen and hundreds more Senators would really change anything?”
You wouldn’t need to add more congressmen and senators. In fact you could keep the numbers exactly as they are, and STILL make it possible for NEW parties to establish themselves using some kind of proportional voting mechanism. The reason for republicans and democrats (in the U.S. – Labour and Conservatives in the U.K.) not wanting this is so obvious, that it needs not to be discussed. The reason for the populace in said countries, NOT to cry out for an end of this IDIOCY, is my main concern. These are the people supposed to be the INVENTORS of MODERN DEMOCRACY, and they ALLOW this travesty, year after year. They even try to force others to follow this complete FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY AS A SYSTEM at gun-point.
Would it change anything (in the U.S.)? I don’t know. A people who has allowed the current system to go on for more than a hundred years, cannot be too interested in democracy, or then they are too dumb.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
Finnpundit:
Your U.S.-loving bigotry reaches new heights with these comments of yours.
“Wow. The level of ignorance in Finland about how democratic representation in the US is constituted is amazing. One representative for a state? Go back to school.”
What I have been saying (that YOU miss the point is not a surprise) is that the IDEA of voting ONE representative (be that the state of California, or the city of New York or whatever) from a certain region is undemocratic. This is not a contest of “know U.S. history and constitution” – and you don’t need to know any history of the country you love, to understand that this system (which seems to have been copied from the U.K. btw) is a failure. And WHERE have I said that I think there is “one representative for a state”?
“The US form of democracy is an ideal model for a 290 million people state.”
Wow. The U.S. form is an IDEAL model? Based on what? Because Finnpundit loves the U.S., thus everything that is practised in the U.S. should automatically be copied everywhere else? Or what is the (twisted) logic behind your thought?
Do you think that we sould go back to the “vote for an elector” model of president election (as that is the IDEAL MODEL used in your beloved U.S.)? In this day and age? Even a U.S. lover, such as you, should understand that it is not very democratic, when you can get elected even if you receive less votes than your opponent. But then again, in your case, I wouldn’t be surprised if you would oppose even this.
“In fact, the EU should take more lessons from that, since the current constitutional deadlock was precipitated, – essentially – by the fact that more populous states (like France) do not feel their full [considerable?] ???weight?? was fairly represented in the new constitution.”
What does this have to do with ANYTHING? And what does this have to do with the question of whether electing ONE representative for ONE region is democratic or not?
I’m not saying that the system used e.g. in Finland is any IDEAL MODEL for anything (in fact I think it could – and SHOULD – be improved), but it is a VAST improvement over the idiot systems used in the U.S. and the U.K. (and probably in some other countries loved by Finnpundit as well).
That you have situations, such as the one in the Gore vs. Bush election, in this day and age, is just unbelievable.
“There was a reason why the US Constitution was made up the way it is. ”
Sure there were. So? There might be OTHER REASONS today. The world changes, or has this fact of life escaped poor Finnpundit?
“In fact, the only reason that European parliamentarian democracies have been able to survive – at all – is because they???ve enjoyed the security umbrella cast by a democracy based on the US Constitution.”
Keep on dreaming.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
If I remember correctly, Germany, Japan and Irak all have proportional parlaments.
Comment by Justen — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
And forgot. Britain has three big parties, and one more that is doing well too. Its just the American mentality that locks them to two parties. Its the “us vs. them” thinking, hard to remember that there are sometimes third options. American history shows us that third parties (with followers) usually get absorbed to the two bigger ones. Also, was it either Republicans or Democrats whom fell out of the map at somepoint altogether?
Comment by Justen — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
Justen:
“America is lots bigger than Finland. What works here dosent necessarry work there. Bigger senate would only be harder to manage and keep in line.”
Who said that there would be a bigger senate (or house of representatives)? You could easily design a proportional voting system, and keep the size as it is (if that is important – why it would be so important escapes me – but the traditionals seem to intrigued by keeping things “the way they are”).
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
Don’t remember who said this but I have an advice for thomas and others. Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Comment by Jack — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
Justen:
“If I remember correctly, Germany, Japan and Irak all have proportional parlaments.”
OK, but what is your point?
“And forgot. Britain has three big parties, and one more that is doing well too. ”
Which are these 4 parties? I know that there are Labour, Tories (conservatives) and Liberal democrats (?). But any other party (doing well)?
But in any case, the liberal democrats (or whatever) have been striving for years to establish themselves. And they aren’t (AFAIK) doing too well, even today. Labour voters, may not be so intrigued by having to choose between “pest and cholera”, if looking for an alternative. Some friends of mine – who finally realised Tony Blair is an idiot – could simply say, what else can we vote for? That is the problem of the U.K./U.S. system. It does not allow new parties to emerge.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
European parliamentary democracies are easily malleable – too easily so. It was not hard for these parliaments to be controlled by any strong man that came along during the crisis years of the World War. Then, when many such countries were occupied (some by Nazis, some by Soviets, etc.) it was not that difficult for the occupier to use the parliaments as vehicles for the legitimization of the occupation and, worse still, induce cooperation from them for any of their favorite ideological projects (extermination of the Jews, forced collectivization of private property, etc.).
France is a prime example. They’ve gone through several republics (they’re on their Fifth one), each one wobbly and rickety, each prone to collaborative tendencies (a trait learned from coalition politics?) and each predecessor beset with the inherent problem of leadership. De Gaulle forced through the concept of a strong presidency, and that seems to have given this Republic a certain amount of stability, so far.
As the American security umbrella becomes less and less necessary in Europe (it was still quite important in 1999 in Kosovo, saving the European parliamentary democracies the odious task of having to make difficult decisions) it would be nice to see the Europeans rise to the occasion and build something lasting. But nothing of the sort has happened. The French and Dutch no votes have effectively annulled the EU constitution project. The lack of cooperation in instituting European-wide anti-terrorism policies floundered in local constitutional laws which, for example, forbade the extradition of terrorists. And the rift between the successful Anglosphere economies in Europe with the Franco-German welfare-statist axis shows no sign of abating any time soon.
Parliamentary democracies do give the feeling of a more direct expression of the full spectrum of society. Yet most of the time the full expression of a society also means that decisions will take longer to make, and change harder to induce – or that decision are not made at all. As long as someone else takes care of outside threats (as the US did during the Cold War), such a system can coast along quite easily. But with the introduction of a crisis, such systems should rise to the occasion. Sadly, we have yet to see that happen in Europe.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
Fuckpundit:
“European parliamentary democracies are easily malleable – too easily so. It was not hard for these parliaments to be controlled by any strong man that came along during the crisis years of the World War. Then, when many such countries were occupied (some by Nazis, some by Soviets, etc.) it was not that difficult for the occupier to use the parliaments as vehicles for the legitimization of the occupation and, 2worse still, induce cooperation from them for any of their favorite ideological projects (extermination of the Jews, forced collectivization of private property, etc.).”
Bullshit. What are you proposing? Less democracy (I’m not doubting YOU would propose this)?
“France is a prime example. They???ve gone through several republics (they???re on their Fifth one)”
So? That the frenshmen are capable of change, means that CHANGE SHOULD NOT HAPPEN? Grow up!
“As the American security umbrella becomes less and less necessary in Europe (it was still quite important in 1999 in Kosovo, saving the European parliamentary democracies the odious task of having to make difficult decisions) it would be nice to see the Europeans rise to the occasion and build something lasting.”
Something lasting? Like DEMOCRACY in Iraq? Is that the kind of LASTING you are proposing? I’m starting to think that “Jack” was very much correct when he wrote “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”. The IDIOT is you fuckpundit!
“Parliamentary democracies do give the feeling of a more direct expression of the full spectrum of society. Yet most of the time the full expression of a society also means that decisions will take longer to make, and change harder to induce – or that decision are not made at all.”
Would that mean things like the Kyoto agreement, which the oh so flexible U.S. of A. has not been able to accept, or? Parliamentary Europe, has been able to deal with this question YEARS before the U.S.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 7:39 pm
Fuckpundit:
Hey, if he’s “Fuckpundit”, am I living in Fuckland?
Comment by Phil — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 8:41 pm
Japan and Germany had both their constitutions written by Americans, and they went with the proportional voting. Point was: while the system of America is not perfect, they install aboard democracies that are “improved” versions. They dont just import american version aboard, which is something Im really happy about. They are trying to do that in Irak now. The problem is, most Irakians (spelling?) want islamic nation, and America dosent, but they have to install democracy which will lead to islamic nation…
Comment by Justen — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Ah, yes, when they resort to profanity, you know they’re losing the argument.
Justen: America did indeed have a major role in writing the constitution of Japan; however, German parliamentary democracy is more of a continuation of the Weimar Republic of the 1920′s. As to Iraq, it is anybody’s guess what will take place. There’s no reason to expect that Islam will not be enshrined somehow in their constitution; however, the fact that Sunnis and Shiites are so divided will certainly mean that religious interpretation will not be allowed to have a central role.
I think it’s wise for Old Europe to stay out of debates on Iraq, though, as they obviously have little to offer in this regard.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
F***pundit:
“when they resort to profanity, you know they???re losing the argument”.
When will YOU know YOU LOST the argument? It won’t happen soon. Will it EVER happen – thats open to debate. But that debate is hopefully not lead by you, or anyone sharing your view of the world! In that case, TRUTH would be the loser.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 10:22 pm
Phil:
“Hey, if he???s ???Fuckpundit”, am I living in Fuckland?”
Lets hope so, for your sake.
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 10:24 pm
Thanks, Finnpundit, I stand corrected.
Comment by Justen — Sun, Jul 31st, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
I don’t think young Thomas got it.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 4:40 am
“Would that mean things like the Kyoto agreement, which the oh so flexible U.S. of A. has not been able to accept, or? Parliamentary Europe, has been able to deal with this question YEARS before the U.S.”
Just where has the EU dealt with Kyoto other than sign it? It was already posted here that Finland is 20% above it’s Kyoto target and a number of other EU nations are no better off:
http://www.finlandforthought.net/index.php?p=37
Now the idea of proportional representation might seem like a panacea for those who hate the Democrats, but be careful what you ask for. Most of the Republicans elected come from more sparsely populated parts of the country where the Democrats get their strengths from the cities where the Republicans are mostly shut out. Proportional representation will more benefit the Republicans who would gain seats in the cities…….
Funny, I thought the Finnish election system was weird. Nothing like having a large number of candidates and when you vote, you vote for one. I speak from experience. In the US you get the vote for many things. The ballot with the circle in it that I was handed was somewhat of a disappointment.
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 6:28 am
I certainly for one think all different systems have their pros and cons. Where one system suits for one country, it doesn’t have to be the right one for another country. You guys seem to forget that Finland and the United States are both democracies. Systems itself are very vulnerable and always imperfect. I think President Kekkonen was pretty good at manipulating the Finnish system to a less democratic direction whenever he felt the need to do so. No matter how perfect a document the US Constitution is, there’s probably a much better functioning opposition in today’s Russia than President Monroe faced in his time in the United States. When political ?©lites start functioning around one person, any system is in danger of escaping the voters’ reach.
And Finnpundit, you’re right that profanity is a clear sign of losing the argument. Losing doesn’t always mean you’re wrong, it usually means not sticking to your guns and defending your position fairly. No matter the position, Finnpundit’s strength is in producing readable arguments.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 10:10 am
I don’t see how finnpundit contributes anything to the conversation when all he is saying is that everything thats american must be good, remindes me of american frat boys who are allways yelling america is the best, we can kick your ass with our nuclear weapons so shut up and let us be ignorant idiots.
Comment by O — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
My point wasn’t about what Finnpundit is saying. It’s about HOW you say things (even if Finnpundit wouldn’t approve of my using capital letters). Few people can argue as skilfully for the United States (native-born Americans seldom succeed in that as most liberals are bashing the red states and most conservatives are bashing the blue states all the time) as Finnpundit. The weakest spot in Finnpundit’s argument is the “Europe should shut up” part of it. That’s just as simplistic as the “America should shut up” crap of the anti-Americans.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
Helsinkian:
Few people can argue as skilfully for the United States (native-born Americans seldom succeed in that as most liberals are bashing the red states and most conservatives are bashing the blue states all the time) as Finnpundit.
I agree wholeheartedly. Finnplunder is full of s**t, obviously, but in an eloquent, entertaining way.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
It doesn’t matter how good you are with words it’s the content of those words that matters and finnpundit should know this before he enters into an arguement
Comment by O — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
besides when reading finnpundits posts you can smell the sh*t for miles and for that I wouldn’t say his posts are eloquent
Comment by O — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 6:10 pm
Nothing like free speach and posting anonymously!
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 6:12 pm
The sign of true eloquence is to be full of shit and just keep on dancing without being ignored, which he would be if his style were as half-witted as (most of) his content.
The sign of Finnplunder losing an argument is common to his (I’m assuming a male gender here) kind: he stops posting about a particular subject and starts a diatribe about something else.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
I tend to think that the alacrity of Finnish commenters on this blog to turn the tables on every one of Phil’s posts into a discussion of the US, Iraq, or the Kyoto treaty speaks for itself.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Aug 1st, 2005 @ 9:16 pm
Fred Fry:
“Just where has the EU dealt with Kyoto other than sign it? It was already posted here that Finland is 20% above it???s Kyoto target and a number of other EU nations are no better off”
But the EU SIGNED IT, contrary to the U.S., and that MEANS following the agreements. What is your problem, if you don’t understand this?
Comment by Thomas — Sun, Aug 7th, 2005 @ 2:32 am
But the agreements will not be followed. It is impossible for Finland and Europe to actually achieve what’s been agreed to. That is what that 20% figure meant. It is economically impossible at this point to actually achieve Kyoto’s goals.
They will, of course, change the rules just before the Kyoto treaty’s term expires. But then that wouldn’t be a treaty anymore, would it?
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Aug 7th, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
Here I agree with Finnpundit: without massive deployment of nuclear power Kyoto was unrealistic. Idiotically, Germany has committed to giving up for nuclear power. These poor bastards don’t realize that the only chance for Germany to survive economically is the massive use of nuclear power – regardless of Kyoto.
Comment by Markku — Mon, Aug 8th, 2005 @ 8:47 am