Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 11/13/2011 2:48:36 AM PST by jenk
I watched that show. I agree with the author. Saying it was dumb means nothing. Was it dumb because he now sees the policy he was advocating was dead wrong? Or was it dumb because it just about knocked him off the minimum acceptable Republican list? He doesn’t say.
His position on AGW is completely muddy. There is no way to know from what he has said to date what policy President Gingrich will adopt on the issue.
The Veto is the only power grass roots conservatives have with this party.
nope, I see posts that offer information so we can all be intelligent when we enter the voting booth.
This is my philosophy on the current republican race including Newt. I get flamed by fellow tea partiers at work but here goes anyway. This country cannot stand another term of socialist Israel-hating pro-islamic Barack Hussein Obama. Every presidential race appears to be good vs. evil, but this one is for all the marbles. Because of this I can support(some of them reluctantly) the vast majority of the republican contenders in a general election. My present (as of 11/13/11 rankings are Perry, Bachman, Cain. Newt, Santorum, and finally, reluctantly Romney. I was originally a Palin supporter, but she decided not to run. We may have to hold our noses and vote for suboptimal republican candidate, but any of them is better than the manchurian we have in office now.
that, except for the rankings of favorites, is most people’s philosophy.
I have a problem with this part: it seems to me that we are reacting to polls taken by (who knows, I’ve never been polled, have you?) and so we are complacent on information based upon who wins over anonymous people and leading the headlines. A lot of people don’t want to hear negative stuff about who may be running highest on the polls. We have to know who we are going to vote for, that should be driven by knowledge of the candidates, not polls.
Your answer is within my original postiIng.
One of my top issues is the evil fraud that is AGW. Rush played a clip of Newt speaking within the past two weeks. In the clip Newt speaks of the 08 ad with Pelosi and climate change matters. Newt goes on to give a clear indication that, contrary to all the evidence since Climategate, he still has a very strong belief in AGW. He stated something along the line of 98% of scientists support the belief in man affecting climate.
I could tell by his voice inflections that his he was implying that you would have to be a fool to not believe in AGW.
After playing the clip, Rush sounded exasperated saying that Newt should just open his eyes to this fraudklj. Newt is 1000x better than Romney and I could vote for him. However, he seems very very stubborn on the issue of AGW.
Could someone please show me a guote where Newt says that AGW is a fraud.
yawn.
Nobody's going to claim that global warming is a fraud...nobody knows. The science is flawed on both sides neither side of the aisle confirming one way or the other.
Newt did say however:
- "Cap-and-Trade has no impact on global temperatures.
- “The earth’s temperatures go up and down over geologic times over and over again,”
- He regretted his notorious ad pushing for a government policy response to AGW
- Abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a central issues in his campaign
- "I believe that incentives, innovators, and entrepreneurs will solve environmental problems, and improve the environment better than the bureaucrats, regulators and litigators."
- "The problem is that the environmental movement is dominated by lawyers and bureaucrats, and it's a front for anti-free-enterprisers who use protecting species as a device to stop development".
To name a few....
The point is Newt’s trying to get conservatives to be prepared to stand on the same stage with liberals and offer a concervative solution to the issue....or at least be willing to debate it.
>>...You don’t make sense, we all have to settle for one?...<<
Poor choice of words. I didn’t mean to sound like some overlord should pick one for us — I was trying to say there should be a clear, consistent leading candidate by now that can rally us together. That hasn’t happened. I don’t think it’s going to happen with the way everyone keeps slinging mud in various efforts to drag a given candidate down.
Like I said, we should know better by now. All the candidates have their flaws. Every single one of them. But instead of broadcasting why we should *not* vote for “X”, tell me why we *should* vote for “Y”. You don’t like Newt? Fine. Tell me who you *DO* like and why. If you can.
>>...Not tearing down progressive GOP candidates is how the country got where it is...<<
Guess it depends on your preferred point of view. I could just as easily say that not promoting and supporting conservative GOP candidates is how the country got where it is. Two starkly different paths to the same goal.
We could add a third path. Not backing one conservative candidate before even the first primary is held.
Global Warming on Free Republic
No more Clintons. No more Bushes. No Mitts. No Newts.
I. Have. Spoken.
Sarah? Save us!!
Yes, agreed!
Ug, “With that explanation, for many conservatives, Newt saved himself.”
Not any conservative I know..
I like conservatives, and am trying to figure out who is one and who isn’t.
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.