Quote:So Romney’s response to a questionnaire — prepared by Scientific American and ScienceDebate.org — is one interesting sign of the emergence of the post-primary candidate. Romney endorses the view “that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.” He accepts, in short, the consensus view of the National Academy of Sciences, while raising some questions about the pace of climate change and the extent of human contribution.

Quote:that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries.” The questionnaire also indicates that Romney’s robust policy team is gaining the upper hand in internal campaign discussions. This type of seriousness and specificity provides at least a glimpse of a governing agenda.

As I've said on here repeatedly, Romney will revert right back to his liberal, intelligent self as soon as the election is done (to be fair, most of you sane posters agree, not like I'm the only one who predicted this by any means). Guess I was wrong.. he's already doing it now.

Abortion and now global warming in the same week, has to be a little disappointing for conservatives to know they've nominated a guy who has the same views as the guy they irrationally hate. Right after his VP gives a speech talking about promoting spending more tax payer money on healthcare and making sure we understand the importance of everyone being able to afford college. Wonder what's next?

This has to do with the economy how again?

You Progs are trying your precious little asses off to give us reasons why NOT to vote for Romney. What's the matter? Can't find one damn reason FOR us to vote for Obama?

(09-05-2012 01:03 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

Quote:So Romney’s response to a questionnaire — prepared by Scientific American and ScienceDebate.org — is one interesting sign of the emergence of the post-primary candidate. Romney endorses the view “that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.” He accepts, in short, the consensus view of the National Academy of Sciences, while raising some questions about the pace of climate change and the extent of human contribution.

Quote:that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries.” The questionnaire also indicates that Romney’s robust policy team is gaining the upper hand in internal campaign discussions. This type of seriousness and specificity provides at least a glimpse of a governing agenda.

As I've said on here repeatedly, Romney will revert right back to his liberal, intelligent self as soon as the election is done (to be fair, most of you sane posters agree, not like I'm the only one who predicted this by any means). Guess I was wrong.. he's already doing it now.

Abortion and now global warming in the same week, has to be a little disappointing for conservatives to know they've nominated a guy who has the same views as the guy they irrationally hate. Right after his VP gives a speech talking about promoting spending more tax payer money on healthcare and making sure we understand the importance of everyone being able to afford college. Wonder what's next?

So, how much do you charge for your "future" readings? Crystal ball or tarot cards?

There is probably as much truth in that speculation as there is in most of Obama's advertising, which is to say "not much." We will only know what Romney will do once he is elected. The Obama strategy is to scare everybody away from voting for R&R because they can't run on his own record. Not all conservatives are social issues conservatives - not even close. It is the independents that decide elections. I suspect all the social issues being discussed are not really what they are focused on right now but rather the economic issues.

Besides, no conservative really believes that Romney is a conservative but figure that he is infinitely better than the redistributor-in-chief and will need to be "nudged" into taking positions that are more in line with what conservatives believe. There is never a perfect candidate.

(09-05-2012 01:03 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

Quote:So Romney’s response to a questionnaire — prepared by Scientific American and ScienceDebate.org — is one interesting sign of the emergence of the post-primary candidate. Romney endorses the view “that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.” He accepts, in short, the consensus view of the National Academy of Sciences, while raising some questions about the pace of climate change and the extent of human contribution.

Quote:that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries.” The questionnaire also indicates that Romney’s robust policy team is gaining the upper hand in internal campaign discussions. This type of seriousness and specificity provides at least a glimpse of a governing agenda.

As I've said on here repeatedly, Romney will revert right back to his liberal, intelligent self as soon as the election is done (to be fair, most of you sane posters agree, not like I'm the only one who predicted this by any means). Guess I was wrong.. he's already doing it now.

Abortion and now global warming in the same week, has to be a little disappointing for conservatives to know they've nominated a guy who has the same views as the guy they irrationally hate. Right after his VP gives a speech talking about promoting spending more tax payer money on healthcare and making sure we understand the importance of everyone being able to afford college. Wonder what's next?

I don't know. He will get pressure from the Tea Party morons and Ryan to keep him from going in the moderate direction. Romney wouldn't be President, his VP and advisors will be running the show. Kind of like Bush.

Romney has to work with what will most likely be a Republican house and Senate (or close) to try and get anything accomplished. He will also have to run again in 4 years. The idea that he's going to go super lib once in office is beyond moronic.

He said he believes the data says man contributes to warming but he doesn't know how much we contribute. That's far and away different than idiot liberals who believe we are the greatest contributor and that the planet will go Day After Tomorrow if we don't end use of oil by next week.

Romney isn't conservative. I don't know anyone that really thinks he is. But fiscally he is light years ahead of your liberal messiah and fiscal skill is what we need right now.

Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

Maybe not but you use YOUR religion to disbelieve in science and then force YOUR religion on the rest of us.

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

It certainly should.. considering your strong religous beliefs.

Science and 2,000 year old fables simply don't mix. Just look at his opinion on abortions that also was reinforced this week. It's not the specific issue that is so important, it's what his respecting the science in general represents on a whole host of issues.

You're right though.. it's not a religion.. and that's exactly what should have you so concerned, considering how much it means to you.

(09-05-2012 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

Maybe not but you use YOUR religion to disbelieve in science and then force YOUR religion on the rest of us.

Except for the fact that climate change science is still very sketchy. They still do not have a working model that can duplicate historical climate patterns when given all of the inputs needed by the model. If they have accomplished this feat, then please share it with us. But if you can't utilize the models to show reasonable results when the answers are already known, then how could you possibly rely on the models and the science to accurately gauge how the climate will look in the future?

(09-05-2012 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

It certainly should.. considering your strong religous beliefs.

Im guessing you know less about my religious beliefs than you think you do..

Quote:Science and 2,000 year old fables simply don't mix.

So what your saying is that the Bible and Global warming have nothing to do with each other... Didn't I just say that?

Quote:You're right though.. it's not a religion.. and that's exactly what should have you so concerned, considering how much it means to you.

Global warming means nothing to me one way or the other. I prefer a pragmatic approach rather than the typical reaction from the left..

(09-05-2012 01:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

Maybe not but you use YOUR religion to disbelieve in science and then force YOUR religion on the rest of us.

Except for the fact that climate change science is still very sketchy. They still do not have a working model that can duplicate historical climate patterns when given all of the inputs needed by the model. If they have accomplished this feat, then please share it with us. But if you can't utilize the models to show reasonable results when the answers are already known, then how could you possibly rely on the models and the science to accurately gauge how the climate will look in the future?

It is sketchy for those who don't believe in science and/or believe a God will save us all from our stupidity.

(09-05-2012 01:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

It certainly should.. considering your strong religous beliefs.

Im guessing you know less about my religious beliefs than you think you do..

Quote:Science and 2,000 year old fables simply don't mix.

So what your saying is that the Bible and Global warming have nothing to do with each other... Didn't I just say that?

Quote:You're right though.. it's not a religion.. and that's exactly what should have you so concerned, considering how much it means to you.

So.. just gonna sidestep that whole abortion thing, huh? That's cute. I specifically say global warming isn't the main point, and that's the only point you talk about. Good stuff there Bull.. good stuff.

I'd also point out saying that two things don't mix, doesn't mean they don't have an effect on each other.

The point isn't that global warming is a huge issue, but if you'd like to avoid looking at the big picture of what having a guy like Romney or Obama in office does in regards to government policy and your religious views, that's great.

If you want to argue there's no connection between those believing in legitimate science and promoting policy that goes against your religous beliefs it can only help us liberals, so keep it up. We really appreciate your open-minded thinking.

(09-05-2012 01:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Romney has to work with what will most likely be a Republican house and Senate (or close) to try and get anything accomplished. He will also have to run again in 4 years. The idea that he's going to go super lib once in office is beyond moronic.

He said he believes the data says man contributes to warming but he doesn't know how much we contribute. That's far and away different than idiot liberals who believe we are the greatest contributor and that the planet will go Day After Tomorrow if we don't end use of oil by next week.

Romney isn't conservative. I don't know anyone that really thinks he is. But fiscally he is light years ahead of your liberal messiah and fiscal skill is what we need right now.

haha.. that guy who put through Obamacare before it was Obamacare? I suppose he did put the same policies through a few years before Obama did, so you're not completely wrong. Maybe you're talking about that VP who supported the same cuts that Obama did to medicare that he's now pretending to be upset about? Might be a good time to start doing some research if you think Romney's economic policy is going to be much different than Obama's.

Sure he'll certainly cut taxes for the wealthy at the expense of some social program that actually helps the economy and the middle class, but other than that, not going to be much change.

(09-05-2012 02:20 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  haha.. that guy who put through Obamacare before it was Obamacare?

No, he didn't. That's a blatant lie. Romneycare has some of the same features as Obamacare, but the two are not the same, and it is dishonest of the left to continue to insist otherwise.

Liberals believe in science when it benefits their worldview (power and control over others). Science isn't done by concensus. There are plenty of scientists with no dog in the fight that find no evidence that humans are causing global warming. Plenty of evidence that the earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years with no help from humans or their activities. Besides, just WHO gets to determine when the earth is at "just the right temperature?" When is the climate "just right?" It's simply alarmism to further their agenda. Most of us have moved on.

First we had the global climate alarmists claim in the 1970s that an ice age was coming. Nothing happened. Then, it became global warming that would cause massive destruction. When their charade was getting laughed at and their deceit became clearer (and those pesky temps didn't follow their modeled results) it became "climate change" so that any abnormal weather event can be blamed on that boogie man. So, here we are today.

Just like the dem WOW - war on women ™ this is simply another way to try and demonize those with which you disagree. Now, it is a war on science. Good grief. This works on silly emotional women and on uneducated fools.

The IPCC was a purely political body created by the U.N. to create a report supposedly based on science which aligns with their pre-determined conclusions that humans are causing the death of planet earth. There were scientists who submitted research and papers whose conclusions did not fit the agenda who found themselves and their work left out of the report. They know all too well what has happened. Same with scientists whose work discredits the supposed concensus view who find themselves blocked from publishing their work by the AGW cabal. The leaked emails from E Anglia U. confirm this.

The purpose of course, is to transfer wealth from 1st world nations to the 3rd world. Re-distribution. All you need to do is research the early movers and shakers. Some of them are on record for stating just exactly what I described. Others, like Gore, were simply uneducated fools that don't understand what they are/were shilling, but DO understand that they could make huge fortunes implementing their global plans.

(09-05-2012 02:20 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  haha.. that guy who put through Obamacare before it was Obamacare?

As Owl pointed out, that's a lie.

Quote:Maybe you're talking about that VP who supported the same cuts that Obama did to medicare that he's now pretending to be upset about?

Cute, but not really true. Ryan's plan isn't Romney's plan. And Ryan's plan didn't "support" the cuts, his plan took them into account as part of the baseline because Obamacare is the law.

Quote:Might be a good time to start doing some research

Given your record on here..this is a fairly hysterical comment.

Quote:if you think Romney's economic policy is going to be much different than Obama's.

Sure he'll certainly cut taxes for the wealthy at the expense of some social program that actually helps the economy and the middle class, but other than that, not going to be much change.

You're deluded if you think Romney's fiscal policy will remotely resemble what Obama's done.

Quit talking out your a$$ and make an effort to post something with some resemblance to reality.

(09-05-2012 02:07 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

It certainly should.. considering your strong religous beliefs.

Im guessing you know less about my religious beliefs than you think you do..

Quote:Science and 2,000 year old fables simply don't mix.

So what your saying is that the Bible and Global warming have nothing to do with each other... Didn't I just say that?

Quote:You're right though.. it's not a religion.. and that's exactly what should have you so concerned, considering how much it means to you.

So.. just gonna sidestep that whole abortion thing, huh? That's cute. I specifically say global warming isn't the main point, and that's the only point you talk about. Good stuff there Bull.. good stuff.

Given that (1) Abortion and Climate change are unrelated, (2) my opposition to Abortion is the same as to any murder not just "religious in nature", and (3) it was a pathetically transparent attempt to change the subject... Yes I ignored your flame bait

(09-05-2012 02:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 02:20 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  if you think Romney's economic policy is going to be much different than Obama's.

Sure he'll certainly cut taxes for the wealthy at the expense of some social program that actually helps the economy and the middle class, but other than that, not going to be much change.

You're deluded if you think Romney's fiscal policy will remotely resemble what Obama's done.

I'm sure you're right Niner, but I think there's a non-trivial chance that while being different, Romney's fiscal policy will be equally as foolish as Obama's (e.g. GWB).

HuskieFan84 Wrote:has to be a little disappointing for conservatives to know they've nominated a guy who has the same views as the guy they irrationally hate

I think there's a big difference between sharing a viewpoint (and I'm not sure they're as aligned as you think) and sharing a proposed action to address that viewpoint. I very much doubt Romney would advocate taking the actions that the current administration has taken and continues to advocate re global warming.

(09-05-2012 01:38 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Global warming is not a religion to use like it is to you guys on the left...

Were I in Romney's camp in the first place this would have zero effect on me.

It certainly should.. considering your strong religous beliefs.

Science and 2,000 year old fables simply don't mix.

Ah yes "science".

I remember when "science" said that a healthy diet was lots of carbohydrates, and cut back on fats and proteins (and stay away from eggs).

I remember when "science" told us that the brontosaurus was the largest animal ever to walk the planet.

I remember reading about how "scientists" scoffed at Joseph Lister's ideas of sterilizing surgical equipment.

I remember reading about how "scientists" ridiculed Copernicus and Galileo for posing a heliocentric universe.

So do tell us all about science Husky84. It should be rich, coming from a guy who can barely add and subtract to make a living.