1 -Alright I'll start off with this because on top of trying to accuse people of not knowing how to read you seem to be under the misconception that you've made a point somewhere in that very snappy post you just made. You obviously do not comprehend the way the first paragraph is meant to explain why what you've done so far is called baiting so you've resorted to well....being....
- j-mac.
I mean obviously your bias can't explain why people who oppose the U.S. government at any chance for political and economic reasons would act no differently in Obama. This means that your only option is to then make snappy little comments at those who understand politics beyond an introductory level.
When your bias has been confronted with logic, you've replied with strawmen. When your assertions have been confronted with facts, you've replied with one liners that do nothing to address the point made. It is getting tired and it's not even noon.
2 -You seem to not even know what actually happened or what you've stated. Here I'll provide you with the article :
Obama Snubbed by Chinese Premier at Copenhagen Climate Meeting - Yahoo! News
Now here is what you said:
This provides you with the reason Wen discontinued his presence at the event. One simple reason : It is not good for Chinese
business. Not because the event itself is representative of what your emotions and beliefs project as the Chinese considering a farce.
The Chinese have made
zero real effort at supporting programs which would reduce GW because that would mean they would have to put some sort of cork on the mushroom cloud that is their savage economy. Why would China support such an event in the first place?
What is even more telling is that you can't seem to be consistent in whether Wen is snubbing Obama on a political level or the event itself on a scientific basis.
3 - That is not an opinion. That is called a fact. What do the effects of Cap'n'Trade have to do with the political reasons as to why China shows little regard for the Copenhagen summit? None. Because their opposition
clearly stems from an
economical perspective. Not a
scientific one. You indeed threw out a red herring.
4 - What is childish about explaining to you one of the very pillars of debate? You do not seem to understand that your OP is not based on reality but on your beliefs. It is inconceivable apparently that a country which has little intention of having diplomatic relations with the U.S. would have something negative to say about the U.S. regardless of who is President.
This has been proven to be nothing more than partisan rhetoric. You've attempted to substantiate your post with strawmen and red herrings. Nobody has fallen for it. At least not yet. And if they do? I will guarantee that they are as partisan and culturally inept as yourself. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that you've really fooled nobody. You've attempted to debate a topic dishonestly from the start. Projecting
your opinions unto regimes which depend on looking at the U.S. as an enemy to survive.
5 - Your inability to actually debate is very telling. I guess I'll keep it down to a junior high school level. We can say 'like' a lot. Then we can go in circles and not actually debate what is being talked about but you know, what you think we're talking about instead of what is actually on the plate.