PDA

View Full Version : Elections Palin joins McCain on Global Warming, disagrees on ANWR


alnorth
09-11-2008, 10:25 PM
Advance excerpts are out. Looks like interview #2 is domestic, focused on the environment to some extent.

GIBSON: Let me talk a little bit about environmental policy, because this interfaces with energy policy and you have some significant differences with John McCain. Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?

PALIN: I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution.

GIBSON: But it's a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it's not.

PALIN: The debate on that even, really has evolved into, OK, here's where we are now: scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it. And John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it.

GIBSON: Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether its man-made.

PALIN: That is why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.

GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you're beginning to say it is man-made. It sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Sen. McCain's.

PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.

GIBSON: ANWR. You favor drilling in the Arctic National Refuge. He does not.

PALIN: I sure do.

GIBSON: You changed him on that? He changing you?

PALIN: I'm going to keep working on that one with him. ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land. Two-thousand acres that we're asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development.

GIBSON: So, you'll agree to disagree on ANWR?

PALIN: That's exactly right. We'll agree to disagree, but I'm gonna keep pushing that, and I think, eventually, we're all gonna come together on that one.

alnorth
09-11-2008, 10:26 PM
This is very unusual. I have never heard of a veep publicly disagreeing with their running mate.

HolmeZz
09-11-2008, 10:42 PM
This is very unusual. I have never heard of a veep publicly disagreeing with their running mate.

Well she already completely flipped on her global warming stance.

Apparently she also contradicts McCain's position on Pakistan in the Gibson interview, although that was likely because she ****ed up.

tiptap
09-11-2008, 10:43 PM
Because I feel strongly about GW and because Bush paid lip service during his first run for President the first term only to state categorically otherwise in his administration, I do not trust the Republicans to actually move on this with anything that represents a solution.

It is nice to know that Palen can follow orders but her reversal does not seem to come from an understanding of the science merely an adjustment in her political line.

Logical
09-11-2008, 10:47 PM
PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.

WTF is she trying to say.:eek:

Cannibal
09-11-2008, 10:51 PM
Drill baby Drill!

You need to get that saying tattooed on your back, just above above your ahole.

Imagine that picture and repeat your precious line.

alnorth
09-11-2008, 10:53 PM
WTF is she trying to say.:eek:

Well, if you read the question, Gibson was accusing her of changing her opinion solely to fit McCain. (Which was a fair point btw) Her response was basically that she has never had a firm 100% opinion on man-made impact, so I guess she is saying it was new evidence that has swayed her.

L.A. Chieffan
09-11-2008, 10:54 PM
WTF is she trying to say.:eek:

She's saying: "Listen, you fuzzy little shithead --
I've been ****ed around, in my
time, by a fairly good cross-
section of mean-tempered rule-crazy
cops and now it's MY turn. "****
you, officer, I'm in charge here,
and I'm telling you we don't have
room for you."

tiptap
09-11-2008, 11:05 PM
Well, if you read the question, Gibson was accusing her of changing her opinion solely to fit McCain. (Which was a fair point btw) Her response was basically that she has never had a firm 100% opinion on man-made impact, so I guess she is saying it was new evidence that has swayed her.

She points to the obvious affects on the Alaskan state as the evidence of warming but she dodges finding human activities in production of Greenhouse Gases as culpable. Instead she is willing to impugn cyclical event without even pointing to scientific explanation for what those cyclical events could be. It is no evidence of scientific eureka moment. It is merely a backtracking to meet the feeling that echoes most Americans understanding. No different than the lip service by Bush in his campaign.

Logical
09-11-2008, 11:09 PM
She points to the obvious affects on the Alaskan state as the evidence of warming but she dodges finding human activities in production of Greenhouse Gases as culpable. Instead she is willing to impugn cyclical event without even pointing to scientific explanation for what those cyclical events could be. It is no evidence of scientific eureka moment. It is merely a backtracking to meet the feeling that echoes most Americans understanding. No different than the lip service by Bush in his campaign.

I just want to know how she plans to alter cyclical events, ask God to alter them?

jAZ
09-11-2008, 11:12 PM
This is very unusual. I have never heard of a veep publicly disagreeing with their running mate.

It's a setup, McCain is going to flip-flop on this in a major PR move. She's the pretense for why it's not a "flip-flop".

wazu
09-11-2008, 11:15 PM
It's a setup, McCain is going to flip-flop on this in a major PR move. She's the pretense for why it's not a "flip-flop".

That may be. The other possibility I see is that she actually believes in her stance, and McCain's is asinine. And it's a safe place for her to not flip-flop. After all, she is now the only candidate on either party's ticket who favors drilling in ANWR, and she is the governor of Alaska. Who's going to challenge her on this, Obama? He knows he can't win on this issue with the American people.

cdcox
09-11-2008, 11:18 PM
I just want to know how she plans to alter cyclical events, ask God to alter them?

Can't you read?

"John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it."

Logical
09-11-2008, 11:35 PM
That may be. The other possibility I see is that she actually believes in her stance, and McCain's is asinine. And it's a safe place for her to not flip-flop. After all, she is now the only candidate on either party's ticket who favors drilling in ANWR, and she is the governor of Alaska. Who's going to challenge her on this, Obama? He knows he can't win on this issue with the American people.If I was McCain I would be using a food tester when Palin is around, it is easy to make a 71 year olds death look natural.

wazu
09-11-2008, 11:39 PM
If I was McCain I would be using a food tester when Palin is around, it is easy to make a 71 year olds death look natural.

:rolleyes:

alnorth
09-11-2008, 11:40 PM
It's a setup, McCain is going to flip-flop on this in a major PR move. She's the pretense for why it's not a "flip-flop".

Well, on this particular issue, Palin obviously cant change. Being the governor of Alaska and her previous definitive statements, that would be rediculous. Its bad enough (politically) that she had to change on Global Warming to fit McCain, but at least she has some kind of argument of "hey, I'm in Alaska, we are melting, theres no way I can deny it", so its plausible for her to switch.

So the question is does McCain switch on ANWR. I think he wont till after the election. My theory is that they welcome this as a harmless issue where internal disagreement doesnt hurt politically, and it helps sell Palin as having a mind of her own, strong-willed, etc etc etc rather than a loyal soldier picked up from obscurity and parroting the marching orders.

SBK
09-11-2008, 11:45 PM
If I was McCain I would be using a food tester when Palin is around, it is easy to make a 71 year olds death look natural.

Penchief always bringing the heat! My favorite poster on CP by far.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 11:49 PM
It won't matter whether or not they flip on ANWR, because even if they did, it would be so soundly defeated in Congress as to not be an issue whatsoever.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 06:12 AM
Because I feel strongly about GW and because Bush paid lip service during his first run for President the first term only to state categorically otherwise in his administration, I do not trust the Republicans to actually move on this with anything that represents a solution.

It is nice to know that Palen can follow orders but her reversal does not seem to come from an understanding of the science merely an adjustment in her political line.

Do you feel the democrats are going to move on this with anything that represents a solution?

tiptap
09-12-2008, 08:45 AM
Yes

mlyonsd
09-12-2008, 08:48 AM
Awesome job Palin.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 08:54 AM
Yes

Care to define what "Yes" means?

What are they going to do? What will they do that is different from what the republicans will do?

Gotta have a little more detail.

tiptap
09-12-2008, 09:04 AM
No

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:08 AM
She's confident that they will come together on that point because she knows that McCain is only paying lip service to the planet in order to get elected. He has to convince rational people that he understands our responsibilities as good stewards of our natural habitat. But once he gets elected it will be obvious that it is just more lip service. There is no doubt that they will be on the same page when it comes to giving the oil industry whatever it wants.

KCJohnny
09-12-2008, 09:09 AM
This is so funny. Libs fear Sarah like nothing I have ever seen before.

NewChief
09-12-2008, 09:10 AM
This is so funny. Libs fear Sarah like nothing I have ever seen before.

Here's a suggestion:

Stand in front of a mirror. Think about Barack Obama while staring into said mirror. Witness a greater fear.

KCJohnny
09-12-2008, 09:17 AM
Here's a suggestion:

Stand in front of a mirror. Think about Barack Obama while staring into said mirror. Witness a greater fear.

Oh, as an active duty Soldier, believe me, I fear Barack Obama. The thought of him leading the most powerful military on earth is frightening.

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:22 AM
This is so funny. Libs fear Sarah like nothing I have ever seen before.

We don't fear her. We are sick and tired of right wing ideologues playing on the willingness of voters to ignore the issues in favor of emotion and prejudice. We're sick and tired of seeing our country go down the drain because people like you fall for the soap opera every four years.

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:23 AM
Oh, as an active duty Soldier, believe me, I fear Barack Obama. The thought of him leading the most powerful military on earth is frightening.

Yep, fall right in line soldier. Good boy.

mlyonsd
09-12-2008, 09:23 AM
There is no doubt that they will be on the same page when it comes to giving the oil industry whatever it wants.

And the American people.

banyon
09-12-2008, 09:24 AM
Oh, as an active duty Soldier, believe me, I fear Barack Obama. The thought of him leading the most powerful military on earth is frightening.

This was a line frequently trotted out against Clinton as well. And we all remember how he made them all gay.

penchief
09-12-2008, 09:25 AM
And the American people.

The American people want comprehensive change when it comes to energy. The oil industry wants continued reliance. So I must disagree with you.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 09:32 AM
This was a line frequently trotted out against Clinton as well. And we all remember how he made them all gay.

Clinton continued the drawdown after Desert Storm, just like every president in office after a conflict. He also forced the don't ask don't tell policy on the military, reference your left handed comment. Gays were serving in the military before he made that policy. If you were to ask those that were in before they will tell you their life was worse than before, not better.

There isn't a "rule" that the CinC should have miilitary experience, but the Clinton's had a distinct disdain for the military and it was apparent to all. Some understanding of the mission of each of the services is something that you have to take to heart as a president. I don't think it ever sank in with Clinton.

Obama tends to follow along the same lines as Clinton IMO. He has illogical ideas about what the military is for as well as how to outfit them to do the jobs they are tasked with.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Yep, fall right in line soldier. Good boy.

Coming from someone that has never served, I find that to be in bad taste, not to mention stupid.

banyon
09-12-2008, 09:34 AM
Clinton continued the drawdown after Desert Storm, just like every president in office after a conflict. He also forced the don't ask don't tell policy on the military, reference your left handed comment. Gays were serving in the military before he made that policy. If you were to ask those that were in before they will tell you their life was worse than before, not better.

There isn't a "rule" that the CinC should have miilitary experience, but the Clinton's had a distinct disdain for the military and it was apparent to all. Some understanding of the mission of each of the services is something that you have to take to heart as a president. I don't think it ever sank in with Clinton.

Obama tends to follow along the same lines as Clinton IMO. He has illogical ideas about what the military is for as well as how to outfit them to do the jobs they are tasked with.

Clearly he made you gay.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 09:37 AM
Clearly he made you gay.

Considering you as the source I see that you attack the poster because you dont' have a legitimate response.

You don't know shit about the military, nor do you know shit about me.

Keep your childish insults coming, just solidifies your lack of integrity.

banyon
09-12-2008, 09:39 AM
Considering you as the source I see that you attack the poster because you dont' have a legitimate response.

You don't know shit about the military, nor do you know shit about me.

Keep your childish insults coming, just solidifies your lack of integrity.

Your comment is without merit.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 09:41 AM
Your comment is without merit.

Again you have no defense for your stupidity. Figures.

What's wrong, lose a case today - like every day?

Programmer
09-12-2008, 09:41 AM
Your comment is without merit.

Maybe on second thought, but your life is without merit.

mlyonsd
09-12-2008, 09:43 AM
The American people want comprehensive change when it comes to energy. The oil industry wants continued reliance. So I must disagree with you.

The American people are smart enough to want comprehensive change. They're also smart enough to know becoming oil independent is a stepping stone in that change.

banyon
09-12-2008, 09:43 AM
It's really sad when you're too stupid to realize how someone is making fun of you.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 09:55 AM
It's really sad when you're too stupid to realize how someone is making fun of you.

If you were a funny person it might have been something to smile at, not.

You are too stupid to realize that you are the only one here showing your ass.

I'm participating in a discussion, at least I was until you woke up.

Like I said, hatred is going to get the best of you.

penchief
09-12-2008, 10:28 AM
Coming from someone that has never served, I find that to be in bad taste, not to mention stupid.

I have served.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 10:31 AM
I have served.

Cub Scouts doesn't count.

penchief
09-12-2008, 10:36 AM
The American people are smart enough to want comprehensive change. They're also smart enough to know becoming oil independent is a stepping stone in that change.

We are never going to become oil independent. We have to become energy independent. Drilling on the leased sites that oil companies currently have access to would be a part of that comprehensive plan but would be a small part of it. Opening up new reserves may help in a small way in the long term but only if shifting our reliance from oil is active and ongoing.

The republican party's position is more welfare for the oil industry and more catering to the monopoly stranglehold they have on the American people. The oil industry has been given everything it has ever wanted on a silver platter over the past eight years yet all of the benefits for the consumer and the worker that you and they claim will be the result have never materialized. In fact, it has been the opposite. Why is that?

At some point even the most ardent republican supporters have to start asking themselves the obvious questions.

penchief
09-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Cub Scouts doesn't count.

Who's being disrespectful?

Programmer
09-12-2008, 11:19 AM
Who's being disrespectful?

Actually quite a few people are being disrespectful.

The SA comment was meant to draw out what service you were with.

I could have said the Air Force doesn't count but that might have also zipped right over the top of your head.

So .... what military service did you serve with? How long? MOS?

Programmer
09-12-2008, 11:22 AM
We are never going to become oil independent. We have to become energy independent. Drilling on the leased sites that oil companies currently have access to would be a part of that comprehensive plan but would be a small part of it. Opening up new reserves may help in a small way in the long term but only if shifting our reliance from oil is active and ongoing.

The republican party's position is more welfare for the oil industry and more catering to the monopoly stranglehold they have on the American people. The oil industry has been given everything it has ever wanted on a silver platter over the past eight years yet all of the benefits for the consumer and the worker that you and they claim will be the result have never materialized. In fact, it has been the opposite. Why is that?

At some point even the most ardent republican supporters have to start asking themselves the obvious questions.

Your points are taken, but oil independence is not going to happen overnight if at all.

We, as a country, need to start looking to the future needs that are going to be present until we find and establish an alternative energy source. At the moment doing everything we can to isolate our oil needs from the ME and South America seems to be a prudent way of ensuring we have the energy we need until the time something is brought online.

Even the liberal supporters have to start asking some of the same obvious questions.

penchief
09-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Actually quite a few people are being disrespectful.

The SA comment was meant to draw out what service you were with.

I could have said the Air Force doesn't count but that might have also zipped right over the top of your head.

So .... what military service did you serve with? How long? MOS?

I served four years in the navy. I joined at the age of 34. I lived on a ship for four years. I was proud to serve my country.

RJ
09-12-2008, 11:52 AM
You need to get that saying tattooed on your back, just above above your ahole.

Imagine that picture and repeat your precious line.



ROFL

I was going to suggest he get a bumper sticker, I like your idea much better.

penchief
09-12-2008, 11:52 AM
Your points are taken, but oil independence is not going to happen overnight if at all.

We, as a country, need to start looking to the future needs that are going to be present until we find and establish an alternative energy source. At the moment doing everything we can to isolate our oil needs from the ME and South America seems to be a prudent way of ensuring we have the energy we need until the time something is brought online.

Even the liberal supporters have to start asking some of the same obvious questions.

Which is why we cannot continue to cater to the greedy intersests of an oil industry that wants to maintain the status quo and continue our reliance on their commodity. Which is exactly why the republican party and John McCain are wrong on energy.

They want to continue giving the oil industry a free hand and a free ride while playing the same old game of lip service to feul-efficiency, conservation, and alternative sources of energy while working to defeat those initiatives when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is.

Programmer
09-12-2008, 11:54 AM
Which is why we cannot continue to cater to the greedy intersests of an oil industry that wants to maintain the status quo and continue our reliance on their commodity. Which is exactly why the republican party and John McCain are wrong on energy. They want to continue giving the oil industry a free hand and a free ride while playing the same old game of lip service to feul-efficiency, conservation, and alternative sources of energy while working to defeat those initiatives when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is.

Unfortunately it will be much the same whom ever is in office. Big oil has us by the balls and they know it. IMO there will be little difference between the two and until some kind of viable alternative comes out we willl all be stuck as we are.

Baby Lee
09-12-2008, 11:55 AM
The American people want comprehensive change when it comes to energy. The oil industry wants continued reliance. So I must disagree with you.

The American people realize that change is probably in the offing, but what they WANT is to go to work and go see friends and family, without a second mortgage.

penchief
09-12-2008, 12:02 PM
The American people realize that change is probably in the offing, but what they WANT is to go to work and go see friends and family, without a second mortgage.

I agree with you. But monopoly capitalism and corporate welfare has already proven to be a disaster for the American people. Why would anyone want to advocate for more of the same one-sided policies that have trashed the economy for the majority of working Americans?