It's probably time to call an end to this particular discussion, as I've slipped into personal insults and you've started clipping my quotes to support your witticisms in an attempt to imitate fox news. Really, that kind of thing is beneath both of us.

We've identified the point where our world views diverge and it seems irreconcilable from that point onwards. I, like your founding fathers, am a strong believer in liberty and freedom from tyranny in all its forms, including militarily enforced environmental policy. Perhaps the founding fathers would have been less libertarian given the current environmental situation, but I'm not and never will be. I think it is the utmost height of arrogance to think that political boundaries are mere suggestions and your own countries will should be enforceable across them. A large part of this is likely that I don't believe the hype surrounding climate change, and don't believe the problem is as serious as it is made out to be. I am a minority in that view and my particular government is doing more and more to fix this "problem". This is a -good thing-, because it is the power of democracy that the majority should rule in a country - note, that this does not mean the majority in a completely separate country who happen to have bigger guns than you.

I also think borders are far more important than you seem to because without borders there is nowhere for dissidents to flee to. Early Americans would have understood that I imagine, as they understood tyranny and oppression all to well. I believe that any time your will is imposed via force of arms rather than compromise, treaty and rhetoric you are a dictator and a tyranny.

You are opposed to this view primarily because you think the environmental issue is powerful and important enough to call for the abandoning of sovereignty and the imposition of your own government and people's wishes on other countries. I can understand that view and if I shared your belief in the problem, might even share it. It is certainly true that you should defend yourself when attacked in any way, however this will-to-defend when combined with the current American belief in its own infallibility is always a concern to me. At this point we disagree, and we are both obviously acquainted with the issues so this disagreement is not due to a misunderstanding of the issue but rather a difference in personal values, so there is no point to further discussion.

I apologise if my comments earlier were rude in any way, I suspect they probably were.