Skip to comments.Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders
Posted on 10/16/2007 7:44:35 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
click here to read article
....and Duncan Hunter’s position is?
This separates the wheat from the dim-witted, the gutless, the panderers, the chaff.
If you don’t have the nerve or the clarity to see through this, how are you going to stand tough on anything else?
The answer is, you won’t.
Exactly. This is a litmus test issue for a candidate. If they buy into this nonsense there can only be two reasons, and both disqualify them for public office. Either:
A. They can’t recognize junk science and bogus studies when they see it...which makes them too stupid to be President or
B. They know it’s a scam but they play along because it is politically expedient...which makes them more dangerous than A.
“Hunter also weighed in on global warming, saying that regardless of what the studies say, the U.S. should explore alternative fuel sources for use by the Department of Defense. The military has an interest in being able to run its operations off a renewable source, he said.
“Few people in global warming can tell you exactly what’s happening,” he said. “And there is a difference in opinion as to how fast because ice ages have come and gone, how much of the country would be warming, how much the glaciers are receding - how much of that is attributable to mankind, and how much of it is attributable to the natural cycle? But I don’t think you have to answer that question to do what I’ve recommended. I think we have lots of reasons to be energy independent.”
Do you find his thoughts to your liking?
What scares me is that (A) will have (B) as his running mate. It’s a litmus test for certain doom, and it COULD happen.
So basically you are saying we should all be asking Where are we going? Who is this red guy with horns? and What is this basket I’m in?
LOL! Yeah, basically. And wishing there was a nicer way to say, ‘We’re screwed.’ ;)
The closest to that position is Ron Paul who usually side-steps the question with something about ending subsidies for this or that. He never call for any restrictions though. As much as his position on the war appalls me I'm leaning towards voting for him anyway. Wars end but government programs never do.
This is so obviously backdoor socialism. How do you fix global warming? Well by central economic planning of course.
Mccain has been a cap and trader for a long time.
Clean coal, etc. would be good and needs not “global warming” to be attractive.
Yep. Unless Americans find their spine.
Just in case you missed this thread about Ron Paul and the environment...you are right he has come the closest to calling it a hoax so far.
The front running GOP candidates, McCain included, all seem to be practicing a form of junk science Judo.
They say “OK, you care about the environment, how about more nuclear power plants and clean energy.”
I’m sure that is what their political consultants and advisors tell them to say.
Horse****. The 1997 Senate vote was about the Kyoto treaty, which was a blatant economic IED aimed at America. Any similarly ridiculous treaty that singled out America would meet the same fate today, "discussion" or no discussion.
People forget that it was a unanimous vote.
Hope you're right. But I remember George H. W. Bush and his abrupt cutoff of freon. And does anyone remember the ill-fated and ill-conceived National Trip Reduction Act that was going to make employer enforced carpooling mandatory for everyone?
I won't go all the way back to Nixon and the EPA; but there has definitely been a history of kool-aid drinking in the Republican party on environmental issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.