PDA

View Full Version : Elections Rush: Romney candidacy over because of Global Warming stance


dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:01 PM
Lol. Conform or die

“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”

Calcountry
06-09-2011, 06:15 PM
Lol. Conform or die

“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”Look, if you don't believe in God, you have to have something to believe in.

It is called secular humanism.

You all call it "Global warming", or "Climate Change". I call it crap.

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 06:18 PM
Lol. Conform or die



Coming from a lefty this is fucking hilarious.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:20 PM
Good to see Limbaugh is right on something.

Though he was against McCain last time.....

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 06:20 PM
Any Presidential candidate that comes out on the side of man made global warming being real is no longer electable in my eyes.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:23 PM
Any Presidential candidate that comes out on the side of man made global warming being real is no longer electable in my eyes.

Are you serious?

He is probably one of the best candidate for the right in regards to the economy and jobs and you are willing to dismiss him over global warming?

:eek:

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:27 PM
BTW here is what he said:

<article> “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer,” he said. “I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe we contribute to that.”

Romney added that “it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.” He also said he does not support a cap-and-trade policy, saying it would put American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the world. “We don’t call it ‘America warming,’ ” he said. “We call it ‘global warming.’ ”
</article>
I don't see anything extreme about what he said

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 06:28 PM
Are you serious?

He is probably one of the best candidate for the right in regards to the economy and jobs and you are willing to dismiss him over global warming?

:eek:

LMAO

The best candidate for the R's will be a conservative, not a liberal. The only people digging Romney for the nomination are people that will not vote for anyone but Obama.

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 06:29 PM
BTW here is what he said:
I don't see anything extreme about what he said

And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.

It was right there. He's either stupid or evil, and neither trait is good in a President.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:30 PM
LMAO

The best candidate for the R's will be a conservative, not a liberal. The only people digging Romney for the nomination are people that will not vote for anyone but Obama.

patteeu is going to vote for Obama?

This will come a shock to him

This is going to be a fun election year

LMAO

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:31 PM
Are you serious?

He is probably one of the best candidate for the right in regards to the economy and jobs and you are willing to dismiss him over global warming?

:eek:

I always people whats the basis of your argument for this? Because he ran a successful business? You do realize his business expertise was in downsizing. His time as Gov? He's the creator of Obamacare and his state actually lost 20,000 jobs during his tenure.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:31 PM
LMAO

The best candidate for the R's will be a conservative, not a liberal. The only people digging Romney for the nomination are people that will not vote for anyone but Obama.

Hey look we agree on something.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:32 PM
I always people whats the basis of your argument for this? Because he ran a successful business? You do realize his business expertise was in downsizing. His time as Gov? He's the creator of Obamacare and his state actually lost 20,000 jobs during his tenure.

Don't conservatives want to downsize the government?

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 06:32 PM
patteeu is going to vote for Obama?

This will come a shock to him

This is going to be a fun election year

LMAO

Patteau is a neo-con, I've read it here a bajillion times.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:34 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rsCmiFcRyIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:35 PM
Don't conservatives want to downsize the government?

They do thats why they shouldn't like Romney.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:36 PM
Patteau is a neo-con, I've read it here a bajillion times.

Now he is liberal Obot...LMAO

alnorth
06-09-2011, 06:37 PM
It was right there. He's either stupid or evil, and neither trait is good in a President.

This is one of the sillier comments I've seen on this board in a while, which is something. Disagree and call him wrong if you want, but agreeing with the scientific community is "stupid or evil"? Since when?

Now, there is a very sizable and growing chorus of research indicating that the global warming hysteria was overblown and global warming (due to us) is much smaller than previously believed and easily managable, but virtually no one reputable is saying man-made global warming doesn't exist at all, aside from a few crackpots here and there who enjoy the support of conservatives looking for a credential to prop up.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 06:38 PM
They do thats why they shouldn't like Romney.

Well you just said his expertise was in downsizing companies so this seems to be a good fit for him at least from the Republican viewpoint.

alnorth
06-09-2011, 06:40 PM
He is probably one of the best candidate for the right in regards to the economy and jobs

honestly, he's got the best chance out of the republicans who aren't boring, disliked, or insane (ie everyone declared except Romney, so the field of declared electable republicans includes only Romney right now and no one else), but Romney's also got serious problems vs Obama too. He's the king of the dwarfs right now.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:41 PM
Well you just said his expertise was in downsizing companies so this seems to be a good fit for him at least from the Republican viewpoint.

How? It's not government he would be downsizing it actually goes against him because it shows as a businessman he didn't create new jobs and he certainly didn't do it as Gov. During the 2001 recession Massachusetts was only 1 of 6 states that never fully recovered all it's jobs lost. How am I suppose to believe he will create new jobs and build the economy if he could never do it as Gov. in his own state? And as far as downsizing government again his record speaks for itself he actually created more government.

alnorth
06-09-2011, 06:45 PM
How? It's not government he would be downsizing it actually goes against him because it shows as a businessman he didn't create new jobs and he certainly didn't do it as Gov. During the 2001 recession Massachusetts was only 1 of 6 states that never fully recovered all it's jobs lost. How am I suppose to believe he will create new jobs and build the economy if he could never do it as Gov. in his own state? And as far as downsizing government again his record speaks for itself he actually created more government.

This is part of the problem in presidential politics. Its why George HW Bush lost, why Clinton won re-election, and why Obama will cruise to an easy re-election if the economy suddenly turns around next year.

For some reason we think the president has this magical ability to create or destroy jobs. The office is powerful, but it is dwarfed by the economy, which reacts slowly to change. They get far too much credit/blame when things are going well/poorly.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 06:49 PM
This is part of the problem in presidential politics. Its why George HW Bush lost, why Clinton won re-election, and why Obama will cruise to an easy re-election if the economy suddenly turns around next year.

For some reason we think the president has this magical ability to create or destroy jobs. The office is powerful, but it is dwarfed by the economy, which reacts slowly to change. They get far too much credit/blame when things are going well/poorly.

Ok so what facts do you have that will prove he would be able to turn the economy around on a national level? I agree the economy does take time to turn around BUT politicians can implement policies that effect growth.

cdcox
06-09-2011, 06:54 PM
This is one of the sillier comments I've seen on this board in a while, which is something. Disagree and call him wrong if you want, but agreeing with the scientific community is "stupid or evil"? Since when?

Now, there is a very sizable and growing chorus of research indicating that the global warming hysteria was overblown and global warming (due to us) is much smaller than previously believed and easily managable, but virtually no one reputable is saying man-made global warming doesn't exist at all, aside from a few crackpots here and there who enjoy the support of conservatives looking for a credential to prop up.

I don't believe I've seen climate scientists revise their estimates of the impacts downward. Can you provide a link to a scientific source?

What I have seen is that the political interest in climate change has been moderated. Politicians who were treating the issue seriously are willing sacrifice the issue because politically it isn't a priority or a winning issue at the polls.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 07:04 PM
How? It's not government he would be downsizing it actually goes against him because it shows as a businessman he didn't create new jobs and he certainly didn't do it as Gov. During the 2001 recession Massachusetts was only 1 of 6 states that never fully recovered all it's jobs lost. How am I suppose to believe he will create new jobs and build the economy if he could never do it as Gov. in his own state? And as far as downsizing government again his record speaks for itself he actually created more government.

All good points billay.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 07:14 PM
All good points billay.

Thanks man.

alnorth
06-09-2011, 07:14 PM
Ok so what facts do you have that will prove he would be able to turn the economy around on a national level? I agree the economy does take time to turn around BUT politicians can implement policies that effect growth.

You missed my point. Again, for some reason you think Obama will either "turn the economy around" or "will fail to turn the economy around" within the next year.

The president is not THAT damned powerful.

The president is next to helpless to do a damned thing with the economy in the short term, and anything he or the congress does do (aside from something drastic like defaulting on our debt) wont be felt for a decade or more. Obama cant do anything, good or bad, in the next year.

If the economy improves next year, Obama will get the credit. Unjustly, just like Clinton claimed credit for a fluke tech bubble.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 07:18 PM
You missed my point. Again, for some reason you think Obama will either "turn the economy around" or "will fail to turn the economy around" within the next year.

The president is not THAT damned powerful.

The president is next to helpless to do a damned thing with the economy in the short term, and anything he or the congress does do (aside from something drastic like defaulting on our debt) wont be felt for a decade or more. Obama cant do anything, good or bad, in the next year.

If the economy improves next year, Obama will get the credit. Unjustly, just like Clinton claimed credit for a fluke tech bubble.

Sir, you don't think Obamas policies have had any effect on the economy? I'm sorry but thats just not true even some business owners on here have said they are affraid to invest because of Obamas policies. So do say the president doesn't have any influence simply isn't true.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 07:19 PM
You want to see some short term results? Cut the income tax.

alnorth
06-09-2011, 07:20 PM
I don't believe I've seen climate scientists revise their estimates of the impacts downward. Can you provide a link to a scientific source?

The UN Panel is not going to do that until the hysterics are in the minority, which they aren't... yet. I'm in the Bjorn Lomborg/Patrick Michaels school of thought on this, who gathered together a pile of scientific studies to advance their view of the "man-made global warming is a managable problem, not a doomsday crisis" argument. Not sure what to link, I have books/DVD's from them.

HonestChieffan
06-09-2011, 07:20 PM
Are you serious?

He is probably one of the best candidate for the right in regards to the economy and jobs and you are willing to dismiss him over global warming?

:eek:

What do you base this on?

alnorth
06-09-2011, 07:22 PM
Sir, you don't think Obamas policies have had any effect on the economy? I'm sorry but thats just not true even some business owners on here have said they are affraid to invest because of Obamas policies. So do say the president doesn't have any influence simply isn't true.

I am wrong because a couple guys you know says so?

Of course he has influence, just very little in the short term (and potentially a whole lot 10+ years from now). Anyone who is afraid to invest in their business, if it makes sense to do so, because they are "afraid of what Obama will do" (despite a GOP house) is a fool.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 07:26 PM
I am wrong because a couple guys you know says so?

Of course he has influence, just very little in the short term (and potentially a whole lot 10+ years from now). Anyone who is afraid to invest in their business, if it makes sense to do so, because they are "afraid of what Obama will do" (despite a GOP house) is a fool.

Talk to any business owner on here.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 07:27 PM
What do you base this on?

His business experience...

alnorth
06-09-2011, 07:27 PM
Talk to any business owner on here.

Not a useful sample.

I could also talk to anyone who posts comments down below a news story on a newspaper web site. That is a sample weighted very heavy in lunatics, and this board is weighted very heavy in political conservatives.

cdcox
06-09-2011, 07:41 PM
The UN Panel is not going to do that until the hysterics are in the minority, which they aren't... yet. I'm in the Bjorn Lomborg/Patrick Michaels school of thought on this, who gathered together a pile of scientific studies to advance their view of the "man-made global warming is a managable problem, not a doomsday crisis" argument. Not sure what to link, I have books/DVD's from them.

If the planet were to warm by 4C or more by 2100 (not the most extreme scenario), no one really knows if that would be "manageable" or not. Is losing tens of thousands of square miles of shoreline worldwide more "manageable" than a gradual but aggressive switch to non-fossil fuels? I think those discussions are worth having, but our some of our leaders would rather call the whole thing a scam and the rest of them are giving ground for the sake of political expediency.

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 07:55 PM
If the planet were to warm by 4C or more by 2100 (not the most extreme scenario), no one really knows if that would be "manageable" or not. Is losing tens of thousands of square miles of shoreline worldwide more "manageable" than a gradual but aggressive switch to non-fossil fuels? I think those discussions are worth having, but our some of our leaders would rather call the whole thing a scam and the rest of them are giving ground for the sake of political expediency.

And those damned scientists being outed as making all their data up.

Man made global warming is a complete fraud, some folks just tied to much to it and can't let go.

cdcox
06-09-2011, 08:03 PM
And those damned scientists being outed as making all their data up.

Man made global warming is a complete fraud, some folks just tied to much to it and can't let go.

No they haven't. The research of a tiny fraction of climate scientists was called into question. Even among those scientists, not a single paper by the climate gate group was retracted. Not to mention the hundreds of scientists whose work was never called into question. Your statement is terribly misinformed.

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 08:05 PM
No they haven't. The research of a tiny fraction of climate scientists was called into question. Even among those scientists, not a single paper by the climate gate group was retracted. Not to mention the hundreds of scientists whose work was never called into question. Your statement is terribly misinformed.

LMAO

Love it.

cdcox
06-09-2011, 08:07 PM
LMAO

Love it.

Refusal to engage in a serious discussion based on facts and science. Typical.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 08:08 PM
Didn't I read somewhere, probably on CP, that one of the big skeptics of global warming recently switched sides because of the data he saw?

cdcox
06-09-2011, 08:08 PM
Didn't I read somewhere, probably on CP, that one of the big skeptics of global warming recently switched sides because of the data he saw?

Yes.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=245352

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 08:11 PM
Yes.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=245352

Thanks. I thought I wasn't imagining things

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2011, 08:24 PM
Romney is trying to be politically-correct/straddle the fence (not a bad stance, usually)...but in Presidential politics, one needs to resist the temptation to blatantly stick your wetted-finger in the wind, to determine your "position"....this won't help him, but it won't hurt him too much either. It's really a wash.

It's not as if a large number of Republican primary voters will be swayed by THIS issue... Heh. The bigger issue that no one wants to talk about with Mitt, is....you ready?....yeah, it's the 21st Century and all, but....he is still Mormon. Not that I think it's "right." But it is, what "it is."

Game-set-match. Obama wins, if Mitt manages the nomination. Just sayin'. Mark it down.

alnorth
06-09-2011, 08:25 PM
If the planet were to warm by 4C or more by 2100 (not the most extreme scenario), no one really knows if that would be "manageable" or not. Is losing tens of thousands of square miles of shoreline worldwide more "manageable" than a gradual but aggressive switch to non-fossil fuels? I think those discussions are worth having, but our some of our leaders would rather call the whole thing a scam and the rest of them are giving ground for the sake of political expediency.

Well, ocean levels might rise about a foot by 2100. Ocean levels rose about a foot between 1900 and 2000. Somehow we managed to adapt to that, we can continue to adapt.

One of the difficult issues here is the futility of trying to use the power of the government as a cudgel to limit carbon emissions.

If we achieved the goals of the Kyoto protocal, which would cost us an amazingly huge amount of money if done via cap and trade, we would reduce the increase of our temps by about 0.15 C by 2100. A lot of sacrifice, a lot of lower standard of living, a lot of not helping other world problems like hunger and poverty, all for less than a lousy quarter of a degree. And we failed, miserably, to achieve that goal and will continue to fail because China and the developing world are more concerned about eating and not living in hovels.

The only way to solve the issue is to have a clean or cleaner alternative that makes sense economically without forcing people to change. Our government priorities are completely out of whack.

We should simply stop trying to force people not to use carbon because it is an expensive futile waste of resources, and instead invest a reasonable amount of money into helping the private sector come up with alternatives that are competitive or cheaper than carbon fuels. Maybe it'll be algae fuel, or wave power, or nuclear, or whatever.

Once you invent a fuel that is cheaper then carbon fuels, then all of a sudden, virtually overnight, you've won. The world switches over, not because they care about earth day or are scared about global warming, but because it is cheaper.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 08:30 PM
Romney is trying to be politically-correct/straddle the fence (not a bad stance, usually)...but in Presidential politics, one needs to resist the temptation to blatantly stick your wetted-finger in the wind, to determine your "position"....this won't help him, but it won't hurt him too much either. It's really a wash.

It's not as if a large number of Republican primary voters will be swayed by THIS issue... Heh. The bigger issue that no one wants to talk about with Mitt, is....you ready?....yeah, it's the 21st Century and all, but....he is still Mormon. Not that I think it's "right." But it is, what "it is."

Game-set-match. Obama wins, if Mitt manages the nomination. Just sayin'. Mark it down.

Just reading some of the reactions of Tea Party leaders I wouldn't discount their thoughts on his position on Global Warming. Like Bewbies stated above it is a deal breaker for them. I am kind of surprised by that to be honest.

alnorth
06-09-2011, 08:38 PM
Just reading some of the reactions of Tea Party leaders I wouldn't discount their thoughts on his position on Global Warming. Like Bewbies stated above it is a deal breaker for them. I am kind of surprised by that to be honest.

I'm not too concerned by that reaction, because the solution we SHOULD be pursuing re: global warming (dont bother with limits or cap and trade, lets just invest into alternative fuels and see if we can find something cheaper than oil) enjoys broad bipartisan support. The left for obvious reasons, and the right because it helps get us out of relying on the middle-east.

HonestChieffan
06-09-2011, 08:40 PM
Just reading some of the reactions of Tea Party leaders I wouldn't discount their thoughts on his position on Global Warming. Like Bewbies stated above it is a deal breaker for them. I am kind of surprised by that to be honest.

Who are the "tea party leaders"?

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Just reading some of the reactions of Tea Party leaders I wouldn't discount their thoughts on his position on Global Warming. Like Bewbies stated above it is a deal breaker for them. I am kind of surprised by that to be honest.

Eh, Bewbies and Tea Baggers are pretty much, well, let's be honest....douche bags. They have zero "long-term" relevance; at best, they are this generation's "Ross Perot." Or more recently, "Ron Paul."

Interesting, but in the end....not really too consequential. Period. Just sayin'.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2011, 08:43 PM
Who are the "tea party leaders"?

Douche-bags. Just substitute "douche-bag" for tea party leaders. There you have it. Pretty simple, really.

:shrug:

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 08:44 PM
Eh, Bewbies and Tea Baggers are pretty much, well, let's be honest....douche bags. They have zero "long-term" relevance; at best, they are this generation's "Ross Perot." Or more recently, "Ron Paul."

Interesting, but in the end....not really too consequential. Period. Just sayin'.

Pot meet kettle?

HonestChieffan
06-09-2011, 08:46 PM
Douche-bags. Just substitute "douche-bag" for tea party leaders. There you have it. Pretty simple, really.

:shrug:

I had no idea you were a tea party backer

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2011, 08:47 PM
I had no idea you were a tea party backer

LMAO LMAO

...say the Retards. Heh....

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 08:48 PM
I'm not too concerned by that reaction, because the solution we SHOULD be pursuing re: global warming (dont bother with limits or cap and trade, lets just invest into alternative fuels and see if we can find something cheaper than oil) enjoys broad bipartisan support. The left for obvious reasons, and the right because it helps get us out of relying on the middle-east.

Your position is reasonable which means you wouldn't be nominated

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 08:50 PM
Eh, Bewbies and Tea Baggers are pretty much, well, let's be honest....douche bags. They have zero "long-term" relevance; at best, they are this generation's "Ross Perot." Or more recently, "Ron Paul."

Interesting, but in the end....not really too consequential. Period. Just sayin'.

Is Rush inconsequential?

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2011, 09:01 PM
Is Rush inconsequential?

Rush is consequential, to right wing nut-jobs, and other lazy-assed conservatives...yeah, 21 million in radio sounds impressive; the secret is, it really ain't...given the whole picture.

:hmmm:

Yeah, Rush matters to "the right;" too bad he don't matter to ANYONE else.... :shrug:

cdcox
06-09-2011, 09:10 PM
Well, ocean levels might rise about a foot by 2100. Ocean levels rose about a foot between 1900 and 2000. Somehow we managed to adapt to that, we can continue to adapt.



OK, lets do the math.

According to this link, http://globalfloodmap.org/ a rise of 12 inches would displace about 1.8M Americans. Coastal real estate is among the most expensive and valuable in the nation. Let's call the property loss $100K per person displaced. I think that estimate is low, but it gets us in the ball park. Those costs are going to be born equally among all Americans due to increased insurance premiums and federal aid. Let's figure it over 90 years (from now to 2010) and use a population base of 300K. That works out to only about $7 per person per year. Even if I'm off by a factor of 10 due to additional sea rise and underestimating property loss that is still manageable at $70 per person per year. Ok, I agree that the sea rise component is manageable, at least for the US.

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 10:04 PM
Eh, Bewbies and Tea Baggers are pretty much, well, let's be honest....douche bags. They have zero "long-term" relevance; at best, they are this generation's "Ross Perot." Or more recently, "Ron Paul."

Interesting, but in the end....not really too consequential. Period. Just sayin'.

Oh shit I'm in tears.

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 10:06 PM
I'm not too concerned by that reaction, because the solution we SHOULD be pursuing re: global warming (dont bother with limits or cap and trade, lets just invest into alternative fuels and see if we can find something cheaper than oil) enjoys broad bipartisan support. The left for obvious reasons, and the right because it helps get us out of relying on the middle-east.

Conservatives are not against conservation, this is a good post.

For me, I'd gladly take my house off the grid, use solar etc--gladly. I wouldn't do it because I'm going to reduce the temperature of the earth, I'd do it to save myself money.

The big problem with the global warming crowd is they equate solutions with gov't taxation/regulation. That is why douchebag conservative non-teacher types like me will not support a Presidential candidate that views gov't as the solution to the problem. (especially when the "problem" has been debunked)

Bewbies
06-09-2011, 10:08 PM
OK, lets do the math.

According to this link, http://globalfloodmap.org/ a rise of 12 inches would displace about 1.8M Americans. Coastal real estate is among the most expensive and valuable in the nation. Let's call the property loss $100K per person displaced. I think that estimate is low, but it gets us in the ball park. Those costs are going to be born equally among all Americans due to increased insurance premiums and federal aid. Let's figure it over 90 years (from now to 2010) and use a population base of 300K. That works out to only about $7 per person per year. Even if I'm off by a factor of 10 due to additional sea rise and underestimating property loss that is still manageable at $70 per person per year. Ok, I agree that the sea rise component is manageable, at least for the US.

I'd be interested to hear from people who live on the beach, and have for a long time--how much has the sea risen?

I'd also like to know why the election of Obama didn't lower the sea levels as he promised?

Ugly Duck
06-09-2011, 10:16 PM
Any Presidential candidate that comes out on the side of man made global warming being real is no longer electable in my eyes.

Right arm, dude! We don't cotton to science & deductive reasoning around these here parts!

KILLER_CLOWN
06-09-2011, 10:26 PM
Thank goodness the idiot exposed himself or we would have to hear about how great of a candidate he is. Dead wrong on Romney care and now he sides with the carbonazi's.

Chiefshrink
06-09-2011, 11:59 PM
Refusing to admit his Mass healthcare was a failure and now allowing for 'global warming' will be his final nail in his political coffin in his run for POTUS. By allowing for global warming and not admitting his Mass healthcare was wrong will send the message that "cap and trade" and "Obamacare" are still alive and well and then we'll be taxf**ked to death while we literally are dying because of sh**ty healthcare or no healthcare at all because some of us are too old and not productive to the state anymore.

Bottom line: As I have said before he is a RINO and he shows it more and more everyday.

go bowe
06-10-2011, 12:17 AM
Refusing to admit his Mass healthcare was a failure and now allowing for 'global warming' will be his final nail in his political coffin in his run for POTUS. By allowing for global warming and not admitting his Mass healthcare was wrong will send the message that "cap and trade" and "Obamacare" are still alive and well and then we'll be taxf**ked to death while we literally are dying because of sh**ty healthcare or no healthcare at all because some of us are too old and not productive to the state anymore.

Bottom line: As I have said before he is a RINO and he shows it more and more everyday.

in what way is romneycare a failure?

KILLER_CLOWN
06-10-2011, 12:29 AM
Obamacare failure now evident as health care costs rise nationwide

Wednesday, May 18, 2011 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) President Barack Obama's signature health care law was supposed to accomplish a couple of things. First, it was supposed to ensure that all Americans had access to quality healthcare; and second, it was supposed to reduce overall healthcare expenditures.

In a word, the law - while admittedly not yet fully implemented - has not led to either goal, and in fact, costs overall are skyrocketing.

These claims were substantiated in a recent subcommittee hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee. Brett Parker, a finance officer for a small business in New York City, in testimony before the subcommittee, said the law hasn't "locked in costs, and instead increased them, while loading job creators with mandates, regulations, new taxes and burdens."

"Rather than solve the problems in the health care system, [the law] ignores costs and instead redistributes money from producers in order to fund vast new entitlements and expand old ones - this was not an improvement over the status quo, it was a step backwards," Parker told lawmakers.

Costs for health insurance, medical services, medicines - all of it - continue to rise, despite the massive piece of legislation that is "Obamacare." And, as they do, all Washington can do is argue over why.

But maybe rising costs shouldn't surprise us. After all, there were a few models on which to base portions of Obamacare before the latter was unfairly put upon Americans more than a year ago.

In Massachusetts, under former governor and prospective GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, a healthcare measure was passed that included an individual mandate (under threat of penalty) and other provisions similar to Obamacare. The law was supposed to accomplish the twin goals of ensuring all state residents and lowering health insurance and actual costs. "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal. Neither goal reached fruition.

In fact, current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and current state lawmakers are still dealing with rising healthcare costs. But didn't "RomneyCare" solve those problems?

About as well as Obamacare has solved the nation's healthcare delivery and cost problems.

The keys to lowering your healthcare costs remain the same as they always have: you've got to improve your lifestyle. That starts with a better diet, getting enough exercise, a good regimen of supplements, and plenty of rest.

If Washington can't lower your healthcare costs, do it yourself.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032428_Obamacare_health_care_costs.html#ixzz1OqtMOoEO

whoman69
06-10-2011, 10:59 AM
If you're going to please Rush, you have to buy into the entire neocon idiocy. Does this mean that if Romney is nominated that Rush will torpedo him like he did McCain?

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 02:37 PM
Right arm, dude! We don't cotton to science & deductive reasoning around these here parts!

LMAO

Science studies the facts and comes to conclusions, the global warming crowd has their conclusions and then created their facts.

Damn you're an idiot.

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 02:38 PM
If you're going to please Rush, you have to buy into the entire neocon idiocy. Does this mean that if Romney is nominated that Rush will torpedo him like he did McCain?

Let's be real, McCain torpedoed McCain. Without Sarah Palin he would have never been within 10 points of Lord Barry.

Chocolate Hog
06-10-2011, 04:09 PM
Let's be real, McCain torpedoed McCain. Without Sarah Palin he would have never been within 10 points of Lord Barry.

I agree and also disagree. His comments about the economy being strong were what sealed it. Had he appointed Mitt Romney as VP at that time he could have given off the false perception that they were the right duo to fix the economy.

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 04:26 PM
I agree and also disagree. His comments about the economy being strong were what sealed it. Had he appointed Mitt Romney as VP at that time he could have given off the false perception that they were the right duo to fix the economy.

The only bump his campaign ever had was right after she was announced as veep.

Mr. Kotter
06-10-2011, 09:29 PM
Let's be real, McCain torpedoed McCain. Without Sarah Palin he would have never been within 10 points of Lord Barry.

Only a douche bag neo-con conservative type would argue Limbaugh didn't "hurt" McCain in 2008.

And, frankly, no one really cares who is VP--despite perceptions. Just sayin'. :shrug:

whoman69
06-10-2011, 09:57 PM
Let's be real, McCain torpedoed McCain. Without Sarah Palin he would have never been within 10 points of Lord Barry.

So Rush coming out against McCain had nothing to do with few Republicans going out to vote? You really want to believe there is no conservative litmus test a Republican nominee has to pass?

Dave Lane
06-10-2011, 10:05 PM
Let's be real, McCain torpedoed McCain. Without Sarah Palin he would have never been within 10 points of Lord Barry.

Yep he might have won.

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 10:30 PM
So Rush coming out against McCain had nothing to do with few Republicans going out to vote? You really want to believe there is no conservative litmus test a Republican nominee has to pass?

Contrary to the thoughts of the most enlightened among us Rush doesn't tell conservatives how to think. He simply echoes what we already believe. Conservatives are not a thoughtless mob guided by slogans or emotions, we are a thinking group that uses logic to determine fact. We measure reality not based on intention but by outcome.

Marching orders go out to the mob, not to us individualistic thinkers.

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 10:31 PM
Yep he might have won.

LMAO

That shit is revisionist history.

Bewbies
06-10-2011, 10:35 PM
Only a douche bag neo-con conservative type would argue Limbaugh didn't "hurt" McCain in 2008.

And, frankly, no one really cares who is VP--despite perceptions. Just sayin'. :shrug:

Spin away, the only life the guys campaign had was at the vp slot. He thought he could nice his way into office because the media "loved" him. He never gave anybody a reason to actually vote FOR him, or AGAINST Obama.

ChiefaRoo
06-10-2011, 11:20 PM
Thank goodness the idiot exposed himself or we would have to hear about how great of a candidate he is. Dead wrong on Romney care and now he sides with the carbonazi's.

Listen, I'm not a huge Romney fan but he didn't side with the cap and trade crowd. To his credit, He said he wouldn't support cap and trade because it hurts US businesses.

China is the biggest shithole on the planet and their population hasn't caught up with USA yet on a consumer pollution basis. I've literally been in Northern Chinese cities where the acid rain has rusted doors shut and corroded new car bodies. I saw some kind of yellow and red junk coming out of smoke stacks there. I've woken up in hotels there with my eyelids matted shut because of the unfiltered coal dust in the air.

If Romney moves forward on to combat pollution on a global scale and includes the Chinese as part of the problem then it's a fair path. Who wants a polluted planet? No one in their right mind. That being said past policies I.e. "Kyoto" were grossly unfair to the USA and Bush was wise to junk it a decade ago as it excluded China and India and to a lesser degree the Russians.

Finally, look at all the kooks in the environmental movement. Look at Al Gore and his decade long over the top speeches and advocacy of policies that were designed IMO to slow US growth and damage the USA for whatever reason.

Global pollution should be addressed but not at the expense of Americans.

I'll say this also. We need to get ourvact together as a people. This is a great country but we have made sone terrible mistakes in the world. We've had our own people damage our economy seriously. Our Govt oversight has failed and we put a guy in as President who has no idea how to get us back on track.

We have an economic, social and leadership disaster staring us all in the face. If w don't get our collective act together then we may permanently damage ourselves. The golden goose that is America is sick and it falls to the American people to start getting it right beginning in 2012.

go bowe
06-11-2011, 12:14 AM
Only a douche bag neo-con conservative type would argue Limbaugh didn't "hurt" McCain in 2008.

And, frankly, no one really cares who is VP--despite perceptions. Just sayin'. :shrug:

i cared...

i was pretty much undecided until mccain picked palin and i saw her in interviews...

the thought of her becoming president if an old sickly guy should die was too much for me...

so obama got my vote...

go bowe
06-11-2011, 12:15 AM
Yep he might have won.

anything is possible... :p :p :p

RedNeckRaider
06-11-2011, 05:47 AM
i cared...

i was pretty much undecided until mccain picked palin and i saw her in interviews...

the thought of her becoming president if an old sickly guy should die was too much for me...

so obama got my vote...

So you basically just went ahead and voted for the inexperienced pretty package candidate as opposed to voting for someone you believed in because he had an inexperienced pretty package candidate as vice president?

go bowe
06-11-2011, 11:43 AM
So you basically just went ahead and voted for the inexperienced pretty package candidate as opposed to voting for someone you believed in because he had an inexperienced pretty package candidate as vice president?

i wouldn't put it exactly like that...

i "believed" in both of them pretty much, palin was just the straw that tipped the scales...

l really liked the inexperienced pretty package because of his expressed policy positions and the ideas he spoke about with such a positive pov while john mccain was obviously qualified and not too far to the right on social issues...

it was a push until he picked palin and i heard her speak in interviews, really, i'm not kidding...

and, fwiw, i realize joe is a gaffe machine, but i'd take him over palin a million times over...

Chiefshrink
06-11-2011, 01:07 PM
Listen, I'm not a huge Romney fan but he didn't side with the cap and trade crowd. To his credit, He said he wouldn't support cap and trade because it hurts US businesses.

China is the biggest shithole on the planet and their population hasn't caught up with USA yet on a consumer pollution basis. I've literally been in Northern Chinese cities where the acid rain has rusted doors shut and corroded new car bodies. I saw some kind of yellow and red junk coming out of smoke stacks there. I've woken up in hotels there with my eyelids matted shut because of the unfiltered coal dust in the air.

If Romney moves forward on to combat pollution on a global scale and includes the Chinese as part of the problem then it's a fair path. Who wants a polluted planet? No one in their right mind. That being said past policies I.e. "Kyoto" were grossly unfair to the USA and Bush was wise to junk it a decade ago as it excluded China and India and to a lesser degree the Russians.

Finally, look at all the kooks in the environmental movement. Look at Al Gore and his decade long over the top speeches and advocacy of policies that were designed IMO to slow US growth and damage the USA for whatever reason.

Global pollution should be addressed but not at the expense of Americans.

I'll say this also. We need to get ourvact together as a people. This is a great country but we have made sone terrible mistakes in the world. We've had our own people damage our economy seriously. Our Govt oversight has failed and we put a guy in as President who has no idea how to get us back on track.

We have an economic, social and leadership disaster staring us all in the face. If w don't get our collective act together then we may permanently damage ourselves. The golden goose that is America is sick and it falls to the American people to start getting it right beginning in 2012.

Hey bud, with all due respect, if he didn't denounce global warming then it is still on the table for him(Romney) which means he would give in to some sort of tax to fund it if he were in office (a la Cap and Trade) C&T is not about the environment period. It is about getting further into the back pockets of you and I so as to supposedly fund all this supposed "green sh**" propaganda but really support a bigger govt.

RedNeckRaider
06-11-2011, 03:25 PM
i wouldn't put it exactly like that...

i "believed" in both of them pretty much, palin was just the straw that tipped the scales...

l really liked the inexperienced pretty package because of his expressed policy positions and the ideas he spoke about with such a positive pov while john mccain was obviously qualified and not too far to the right on social issues...

it was a push until he picked palin and i heard her speak in interviews, really, i'm not kidding...

and, fwiw, i realize joe is a gaffe machine, but i'd take him over palin a million times over...

Joe Biden is a do nothing hang out and get paid life long politician. This buffoon was given the position to play the role of "Joe sixpack" white guy to smooth over a black man running for office. He jumped at the chance knowing it would be as close as he would ever get. If given the choice between him and the pin up girl from Alaska I would pick the pinup girl~