Jon Huntsman Comes Out Swinging

Political Punch weekend staff come out swinging for Pres Barry!
Who the heck is Huntsman and why does his opinion matter since he is not a conservative and is only a RINO.

So do you believe man “evolved” from a monkey or tadpole?

If Perry does not know the importance of teaching STEM in schools, it is a wrap for the USA if he is elected.

Applause for John Huntsman! He might even convince me that there’s hope for the Republican party after all. The extremist, all-or-nothing approach of some factions on the right are neither encouraging, realistic or pro-democracy. So far, Huntsman’s the only one I’ve seen on the right track.

I’m amazed. A halfway rational-sounding Republican! A Grown-up! There’s hope yet.

Jon Huntsman a RINO? He was Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China, I think the only person who has common sense in the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.
He has the pedigree and certainly the willingness to put US ahead of his Party.

When will Rick Perry realize that he his the front runner of a fringe group of the electorate and he is running on a national stage to be the President of “ALL AMERICANS” not just evangelicals and the Tea Party. Jon Huntsman and maybe Buddy Roemer are the only rational voices from the right that I hear from the right. The 80% of the electorate that do not belong to these groups would have to be certifiable to vote for a Rick Perry. The right needs to grow up if they expect any electoral success and realize that 2010 was what it was a protest and not a movement.

Having long since abandoned traditional religion, the left clings bitterly to its own dogmas in hope of creating heaven on earth: Acid Rain (remember that?), overpopulation, and now Global Warming – rebranded as Climate Change, meaning that any change in the weather is proof. Labeling skeptics as “Deniers” makes Al Gore just one step to the left of Huntsman.
The central beliefs, of course, are that Amerika is an inherently evil place that requires fundamental change, and that Earth would be a much better place if humans hadn’t infest it. One has to admire the extent of Obama’s honesty and his obvious success in running on that platform.
This interview offered Huntsman the chance to slag Republicans rather than to comment on the most recent achievements of Obama’s Imperial Presidency, which include his back-door amnesty and his directive that the government embrace “diversity.”
We now have to wait for President Obama to announce his new PLAN in – guess what? – a speech after he’s finished his vacation. Martha’s Vineyard must be a real treat after slumming on a bus in the hinterlands and having to mix with bitter clingers.
That wouldn’t be another of those campaign speeches slyly accusing the Republicans of treason again (“putting party before country”), would it? The press never seems to notice the coarseness of Obama’s rhetoric, but others of us do.
Democrats should lobby Obama to appoint Huntsman VP,or better yet enlist him to primary Obama. That’s a better fit.

My problem with this……is I hated the comment Huntsman made about the EPA, during the Iowa debate.
This new “position” is totally opposed to what he said then.
So is he another “flip flopper” who takes whatever position is the most advantageous, at any point in time?
The planet needs guardianship, not lip service. Decide where you really are, Huntsman, on environmental issues.

I have bad news for Huntsman. If you think conservatives and scinece (and progress) have anything in common he is in the wrong party. Ask Gallileo and copernicus; remember about the scopes trial and you know that Conservatives are simply antagonistic to progress. To be a conservative is to fight change; to preserve the status quo or if possible to return backwards to the “good old days” that exists only in fictive, selective and nostalgic memory!

I actually am surprised that GOPers fly in Airplanes? or use phones (the devil is speaking on the otherside). If you can’t see it or touch it, it is not common sense. If it requires thinking, it is not a conservative position.

Jon Huntsman on the Republican party, “I can’t remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a – a party that – that was antithetical to science.”
Chris Mooney’s book, “The Republican War on Science” provides voluminous and convincing evidence Republicans at least at the federal level, became the anti-science party during the very beginning of the W. Bush Administration. Their antipathy towards science and reality has only grown.

I’d vote for Huntsman..they only one running with a brain..now I just wonder if he has a heart? He’s already got the courage..

Every once in a while the Democrats sneak a stealth candidate into the GOP primaries dressed up as a moderate republican. This years current item on the menu is dreamy Jon from Utah…chuckle…
Jon this will be about JOBS & Stopping Federal Lunacy. The best guy to clean that up may be another cowboy and yes he’s from Texas and Texas has Jobs.
Gig Em’

Jon Hunstman, even though I don’t agree completely with him, is the type of republican that should be leading the republican party. he has a record of working with democrats to get things done. He is close to the center so much that those far right nuts want to call him a democrat… Really any of our leaders that would be president should be center of both idealogies. We don’t need a purist of any idealog running this country.. It would rob our country and p… half the country off. I for one wnat to hear him speak more as a republican so he can clean up the mess that people like Bachman, Palin, ODonnell, Hannity and other right-only servers have polluted our airwaves over the years

For you Democrats who like Huntsman, I’m sure he could be persuaded to challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries.
He could easily claim he saw the “TRUTH” after meeting the other Republican candidates.
His only problem would be that the media wouldn’t like him anymore.

This was all clearly exposed in the Climategate scandal. If you are still hanging on to old phony data, then YOU are anti-science.
Posted by: SEan | Aug 20, 2011 2:37:12 PM
No, it wasn’t.

Ah, yes, the detritus of America gathering at the altar of ABC News. Trash is trash, I guess. I suppose the genius in the White House has done a superb job. Well, he HAS if you like the destruction of the USA. Liberalism IS a disease!

SEAN posted “This was all clearly exposed in the Climategate scandal. If you are still hanging on to old phony data, then YOU are anti-science.”
Sorry SEAN, but the scientist who wrote those emails were CLEARED of all charges. The phrases “use a trick” and “manipulate the data” are VERY common in science. It is always sad to see people like Huntsman or yourself display your total ignorance about statistics and mathematics.

Everyone knows this president has failed. Most of those who actually thought he could be a capable president are deeply embarrassed.
Some of those dead-enders continue to claim that his unimaginably stupid, job-killing measures were actually brilliant (although none can say why).
I relish seeing you in your embarrassment. What on earth were you thinking? Go back and ask yourselves, “what had this man ever done in his life that caused me to believe that he could actually function as the President of the United States?”
I told you you were being stupid. You wouldn’t listen. Now you feel like idiots, as well you should.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Aug 20, 2011 3:37:36 PM
In your little cave of a world view, you sit in the dark watching shadows flicker on your walls.

“When will Rick Perry realize that he his the front runner of a fringe group of the electorate and he is running on a national stage to be the President of “ALL AMERICANS” ”
LOL. Rick Perry has been Governor of the most economically successful state for the past decade – Texas. He’s not fringe he is successful and will be a president who can get America back to work. When will liberals realize that screaming ‘extremist’ at anyone who doesnt share 100% liberal views doesnt cut it anymore. Perry is not the extremist – Obama is!

Democrats cannot take responsibility for their actions:
7 million jobs lost while Pelosi was Speaker.
Obama has the worst jobs record in 60 years.
Yet Faurtz blames Republicans … except the last time the Republicans had the White House and Congress, 2003-2006, economic growth was 3.5% and unemployment was 5%!
Liberals implemented tax, spend and regulate since 2006 (Pelosi Congress) and 2008 (Obama) and it has failed America miserably. Obamacare, regulations, EPA, $14 trillion debt, massive deficits, its a mess! Only insane lunatics would cling to such a failed ideology that defies all common sense.

PATRICK told the following LIE “Yet Faurtz blames Republicans …”
No, Mr. Faurtz said “BTW, our economic woes started after 6 years of having a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress and a REPUBLICAN President. Not that I blame them 100% for our woes…..”
Furthermore, bills passed between 2001 and 2006 have EFFECTS DOWN THE ROAD. I also believe in cause and effect, NOT just throwing out meaningless numbers.
“7 million jobs lost while Pelosi was Speaker.” Can you PROVE Pelosi was responsible for the job losses? Of course not because that is just total NONSENSE. Why don’t you tell us what bills were passed in 2007 and 2008 that caused our problems. Here’s a hint – our problems started around 2007 which isn’t enough time for any bills that were passed by the Senate to have an effect.

Here’s what an AGW email show … pro-AGW scientists working hard to deny the ability of anyone with different conclusions from getting published…
“Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
the science was being skewed by politically oriented editorial decisions at science journals.
… then they would have shills like Al gore say “the science is settled” because scientific dissent was being suppressed.
The AGW church today is suppressing real science just like the catholic church suppressed Galileo in the 1500s.

Liberals implemented tax, spend and regulate since 2006
++++++++++++++++++++++
How did they do that without the approval of George Bush? Congress cannot simply implement anything.

Only insane lunatics would cling to such a failed ideology that defies all common sense
++++++++++++++++++++++
-Such as cutting spending and imposing austerity during an economic slump and while unemployment is high. These policies are crushing recovery in Europe just as predicted.

PATRICK posted “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
And Rev. Wright said “G.D.America” so he hates America.
Sorry, but when I watched his entire sermon I ended up agreeing with what he was saying.
I have no idea about your quote. I would have to read the entire email to know what they were really trying to say. Your quote might be just like the “G.D.America” quote; something taken out of context.

You guys want something to sink your teeth into, look at Ron Paul & Herman Cain as a pair on the ticket next Nov. That’s a real step in the right direction. We’ll all be ahead once again.

Faurtz, can you qoute an article from a reputable scientic journal that mentions “use a trick” or “manipulate the data” in anything but the most severe condemnation?Any mention of “manipulation of data” would toss an article out of any serious scientific journal and probably set off an investigation that could end any grants,public or private.Ever hear of David Baltimore?

NEPHRON posted “Faurtz, can you qoute an article from a reputable scientic journal that mentions “use a trick” or “manipulate the data” in anything but the most severe condemnation?”
Those are phrases in the climate-gate emails that people were upset about.
No, it isn’t language that would show up in a journal. They are phrases that one scientist would say to another scientist.
Here’s is one example I saw on T.V.. A scientist was talking about a mass extinction that happened about 250 million years ago. He was talking about something that happens every 20 or so years that can be seen in the rock formation be hind him. Looking at the rock with the naked eye, one couldn’t see anything. So he took a digital picture of the rock, and in his own words said that he would use the computer to manipulate the data so that the 20 year rings could be seen and sure enough the rings became visible.
You can Google “mathematical trick” to find plenty of them.
Here is one I found about multiplying a 2 digit number by 11 :
Take the original number and imagine a space between the two digits (in this example we will use 52:
5_2
Now add the two numbers together and put them in the middle:
5_(5+2)_2
That is it – you have the answer: 572.

Faurtz, the “trick” the AGW scam artists used was to truncate a series to “hide the decline” in temperature, thereby hiding the lack of correlation between proxies and temperatures and making the so-called ‘hockey stick’ look more real and serious than it really was. That false chart made it into the IPCC summary document and was used as data to support a trillion-dollar transfer of wealth. Your laughable attempt to cover up based on the false claim that scientists use that language all the time (no they dont) misses the point. They WERE hiding scientific data in order to skew results. Pretending this and other egregious examples of data manipulation and cherry-picking doesnt matter is egregious and anti-scientific.
The “global warming is a crisis” claims are pseudo-scientific hoaxes on the order of Piltdown Man. Look it up.

The GOP is tethering by following the Tea Party and ultra right wing conservatives. Jon Huntsman is trying to pull it back from a Barry Goldwater moment. Sure he makes more sense by comparison, but he is still right of Obama and I wonder if that is what is needed at this time. I wish he had run against George Bush back then, won’t have the problems we do now. I think he benefits now from Bush and how dangerous not taking intelligence into the mix.

Pardon me, Rich, but Huntsman cut taxes in Utah. Libertarian think tank Cato said that Utah under Huntsman was one of the best run states in the country.

“Only insane lunatics would cling to such a failed ideology that defies all common sense”
“Such as cutting spending and imposing austerity during an economic slump and while unemployment is high. These policies are crushing recovery in Europe just as predicted.”
Obama’s stimulus has been a failure. Millions of jobs lost since he signed that phony boondotggle stimulus. The truth is out – wasting govt money doesnt create long-term jobs or growth, it just drains the productive sector. Obama has imposed austerity through obamacare taxes and govt mandates, regulations and the generation-robbing of trillion-dollar deficits.
Many countries, like Canada and New Zealand in the past 2 decades, got off the failed marry-go-around of deficits and government overspending and over-regulation. They did it by cutting spending. Studies show that cutting spending and taxes at the same time also works. aka Reaganomics. Under Reagan, the economy grew by 30%. We will have to do the same or our children will suffer for it.

Under Reagan, the economy grew by 30%. We will have to do the same or our children will suffer for it.
+++++++++++++++++
Reagan did it by greatly increasing spending.

PATRICK posted “Your laughable attempt to cover up based on the false claim that scientists use that language all the time (no they dont) misses the point.”
Yes they do Patrick. Did you bother to read my entire post? Did you Google “mathematical trick” yet? What is your degree in Patrick? Obviously you didn’t taken as much mathematics as myself or you would have heard both terms used repeatedly.
Your example says the “trick” they used made a hockey stick shape? You mean like my example of a scientist manipulating the data brought out the 20 years rings?
BTW, you do realize that other people read these posts. I stated earlier that I lacked the training to make an intelligent opinion about which side is right; so I’m not taking sides. Since I’m not taking sides, why would I want to stick up for anyone? I simply pointed out that the people who say the climate-gate emails PROVE the HGW is a hoax because they contain those two phrases are WRONG because I know from my experience that they really are used often.

wasting govt money doesnt create long-term jobs or growth
+++++++++++++++++
Of course wasting money doesn’t achieve anything, but we’re not as concerned about long term problems right now as we are about our bigger immediate problems…an economic slowdown and high unemployment. Long term solutions to long term problems won’t do anything at all to fix that.

jock59801 |Aug 20, 11 7:47PM The Republican Party has been anti-science for quite awhile. It is a product of both the anti-regulation corporate interests and the anti-intellectual religious interests. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – As an Engineer and Scientist most of my colleagues tend to be conservative. The Democrats that I grew up with worked in the factories and were lucky to have completed high school. Most of my college educated acquances have liberal arts degrees.

“The AGW church today is suppressing real science just like the catholic church suppressed Galileo in the 1500s”
“Except you’ve got that exactly backwards…the money and power is behind the big polluters who want to suppress real science in order to maximize their profits.”
LOL, Skip, you have it backwards. Billions has gone into the AGW ‘science’, billions in Govt grant money funded by taxpayers. At NASA, NOAA, Hadley Ctr, and elsewhere. The “club” has a Soros-funded front group to keep the media buzz and the funding coming, and has UN (IPCC) ‘sponsorship’, which globalist social engineers are attracted to like moths to a flame (“Look, we can dictate industrial policy! What fun!”)
the ‘skeptics’ are typically professors who chose truth over the grant funding gravy train. Peilke, Spencer, Lindzen, look them up. The money and influence they have is truly David v Goliath. All the skeptics have going for them is the truth.
Truth is a stubborn thing, though.
In 1989, Hansen, one of the original AGW scaremongers, the guy who ‘taught’ Al Gore, predict a 3C rise in temperatures by 2010. Scary!! It’s been … 0.37C, 1/10th his prediction!
It’s not complicated: HE IS SIMPLY WRONG.
Your attempt to tie ‘polluters’ to the skeptic cause is phony, a fallacy known as ‘ad hominem’. Either the skeptics are wrong or right. The data shows that AGW is NOT OCCURRING AT THE RATES CLAIMED BASED ON MODELS. Actual temperature trends and sea level trends are a fraction of what the models predict would happen.
There is one simple conclusion: THE MODELS ARE WRONG.

I am beginning to like this guy more all the time. But the balanced budget amendment is bogus. It just can’t be done the way they are wanting todo it. They need more revenue. which means tax increases on the WEALTHY. I hope they offset that with a business tax rate reduction. That will give us revenue and increase business in the US.

There is one simple conclusion: THE MODELS ARE WRONG
++++++++++++++++++
Your charge is inaccurate. The best you can possibly claim is the models did not predict the rate of increase completely accurately. This doesn’t make them wrong. The general consensus is that temperatures are increasing.

Here is the thing I do not get. The northern half of the US is due for the next Periodic Ice Age. Does this climate change pre-empt that? New York City may see that as a good thing.

Fautz: “Since I’m not taking sides, why would I want to stick up for anyone?”
But you earlier said: “the scientist who wrote those emails were CLEARED of all charges.”
Poor form of you to question
I have explained how the emails did expose bad science, that any ‘clearing’ was a whitewash that did not validate the flaws in the science, that the hockey stick used in IPCC TAR 3 and 4 was debunked as bad statistics 5 years ago by McIntyre and McKitrick, that the pro-AGW ‘hockey stick’ team used nefarious means to suppress this debunking – including hiding data, stopping papers from getting published and suppressing IPCC dissenting comments – extremely UN-scientific behavior that the emails confirmed were deliberate. I have also explained how the ‘hide the decline’ “trick” was an attempt to sex up the ‘hockey stick’, and as such, the term ‘trick’ here is not the same as how you are using it – it was a trick to deceive.
Yes, I read your posts, but it’s clear now that you are making general analogies that aren’t germane to my main points (the science is corrupted because the skewed data and suppressed dissenting views, NOT because they used the word ‘trick’ in an email). It seems you actually know nothing of these facts, points or details and all I can suggest is that you go to climateaudit.org, learn there, or try this book: The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) [Paperback]
A.W MONTFORD (Author)
For anybody who wants to understand the scientific and psychological background to Climategate, there is no better read than Andrew Montford’s new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science.
The Hockey Stick Illusion leaves no doubt about Mr. Montford’s reporting abilities. He tells a gripping detective story in which the star gumshoe is semi-retired Canadian mining consultant Steve McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre, unfortunately for his opponents, happens to combine mathematical genius with a Terminator-like relentlessness. He also found a brilliant partner in Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph. Their story is one of intellectual determination in the face of Kafkaesque “peer review” and Orwellian “freedom of information.”
The Hockey Stick reconstruction was led by an ambitious and aggressive young climatologist named Michael Mann of the University of Massachusetts. It was eagerly seized upon by the IPCC. Its prominence made Prof. Mann an academic star and the recipient of hefty research grants. In 2002, Scientific American named him one of “50 leading visionaries in science.”
Mr. Montford concludes that the Hockey Stick affair suggests that “the case for global warming, far from being settled is actually weak and unconvincing. The implications for policymakers are stark. They have granted an effective monopoly on scientific advice to an organization that has proven itself to be corrupt, biased and beset by conflicts of interest. Their advisors on the global-warming issue are essentially a law unto themselves ….”
“It is clear that it would be foolish in the extreme to give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt. Their record is too poor, the stakes too high.”
Mr. Montford’s book is required reading, but it only scratches the surface of the much bigger scandal. The Hockey Stick graph was used as a promotional tool for a political agenda. –Peter Foster, Financial Post, July 10 2010

“There is one simple conclusion: THE MODELS ARE WRONG”
++++++++++++++++++
“Your charge is inaccurate. The best you can possibly claim is the models did not predict the rate of increase completely accurately. This doesn’t make them wrong. The general consensus is that temperatures are increasing.”
LOL, Skip, that’s what I am saying. The models did not predict the rate of increase accurately. Not even close. Hansen predicted 3C increase, and it was 0.37C instead. It’s not about being off by 5% or 10% they are off by a factor of 5 or 10.
When a model is that inaccurate, ‘wrong’ is a good term to use.

“No we don’t accept data and claims from right-wing web sites.”
Nice way to keep your mind closed and away from pesky cognitive dissonance that challenges your biases. Enjoy living in that bubble of yours?

Motive doesn’t lie. The amount of money big polluters stand to make by dumping off the ultimate costs of any disruption created by climate change dwarfs what is being spent to research it.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 20, 2011 9:02:59 PM
Agreed.
Right wing parrots are just repeating pretty words spoon fed to them.
Just ask the Koch brothers, worth around $22.5 billion each, with a company that is one the country’s top sources of carcinogenic chemicals and air pollutants and so-called non-profit investments that include Americans for prosperity and think tanks and front groups that spread anti-science propaganda and climate change disinformation and denialism. To help kill climate legislation in Congress, Koch spent $38 million on lobbying — more than any energy company except ExxonMobil and Chevron
Rolling Stone named the Koch brothers number two (and Murdoch #1) on their list of the 12 politicians and executives most to blame for obstructing progress on global warming and climate change.
These people repeating their lies have no idea how duped they truly are, or they are selfish and greedy enough to put their own unwillingness to embrace change over the world and our children’s future.

I don’t think anyone should take the word of right or left wing sites unless the same info is found on a non-partisan site.

There is no way Jon Huntsman is a Republican. He’s much too sane and, thus, would not fit into today’s extremist Republican party.

Sylvia… Acid rain is not new. Dates back to the 17th century. How did that happen?

“What I find funny is other people with even less education than me saying that they KNOW it’s a myth.”
What I find funny is that idiots tell me I can’t come to my own conclusions about a scientific matter by investigating it on my own and coming to conclusions – which is how I came to understand that AGW is overhyped pseudo-science… but I am supposed to swallow the media ‘stories’ on AGW hook, line and sinker, when I KNOW the media journalists flunked out of the college science courses I got A’s in and have less understanding of this topic than I do. And it is sad indeed to see posters here repeat the same “global warming is a crisis” lies spoon-fed to them by a media too ignorant to know what its saying it bunkum.

Posted by: dbright | Aug 21, 2011 2:59:06 AM
Don’t expect the news media in the country to coddle your igorances or your bias – it isn’t their job.
Their job is to present accurate reporting.

Huntsman is too intelligent to be a Republican. Guess that’s why the hard-core Right calls him a RINO. He’s the ONLY Republican candidate who could defeat Obama by getting the Independents and Moderates to vote for him. Fortunately for Obama, the Right isn’t smart enough to recognize that. They’d rather vote for Mitt “Corporations are people” Romney, or Rick “called by god to run” Perry, or Michelle “beware of the rise of the Soviet Union” Bachmann. Thank you, hard-core Republicans. You are guaranteeing 4 more years of President Obama…..!

The media loves Huntsman and keeps giving him press coverage, you might ask why when no one else does? He is a liberal running as a conservative I think.

SEARAMBLER, Aug 21, 2011 8:52:44 AM:
“Huntsman is too intelligent to be a Republican. Guess that’s why the hard-core Right calls him a RINO.”
=========================================
LOL!… TOTALLY AGREE.
What’s the right-wing/right-whiner definition of a “RINO” (Republican-In-Name-Only)?
ANSWER: Someone who is not a true “fiscal conservative”/”smaller-government” type of politician.
LMAO!…with that definition, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN we’ve had in the White House, since Reagan (i.e., Reagan Bush # 1, and Bush # 2) have all been “RINOs” since every single one of them GREW the federal government and Reagan and Bush II doubled the national debt balance. Yep, even the Republican hero, “Reagan”, was a RINO.
The thing that conservatives don’t understand is that their philosophy doesn’t work. Politicians are sent to Washington to “bring home the bacon”. And the politicians themselves understand, that’s what gets them re-elected. It’s in the human nature of a politician’s job to bring back funding for their special programs.
LOL!… right-whiners don’t understand this basic of “politics” and live in some kind of “la-la” land that their going to send someone to Washington that doesn’t have special interest in mind.

Every other Republican is wrong except for him, yet he can work to compromise. He discouted Iowa because he couldn’t “break” through!! He looks like a “created” candidate!

kala said, “Huntsman can’t be that intelligent if he is running as a Democrat.”
Huntsman is a Republican, running AS a Republican, FOR the Republican presidential nomination. Your statement is nonsense…..

Voice_Reason | Aug 21, 2011 9:40:55 AM:
“For the past 800+ days the Democrats have failed to provide a budget of any kind.”
========================================
LOL!…you buy into this hogwash? Where do the right-whiners come up with this junk?
What do you think the federal government is operating off of right now, ‘nothing’…LOL? For your information, the 2011 budget was submitted by the Obama administration to congress on February 1st, 2010, as required by the constitution. It was approved by both houses of congress on April 15th, 2011, and became law Public Law 112-10.
LOL!…so, where ever you right-whiners are coming up with this “no budget in 800 days” JUNK is beyond the more intelligent people in the crowd. … LOL!…it’s all hogwash that right-whiners pick up at Fox News and run with.

The lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists – and their stooges in the lamestream socialist fake-news media – ALWAYS make it perfectly clear who they fear as threats to their power and to leftist extremism and who they feel are minor annoyances that they can marginalize, co-opt, and defeat. Hence, the vicious, hysterical, out-of-control, foaming-at-the-mouth attacks on Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Christie, Ryan, etc., and the kind words of “monica-stain” bill and other leftists for huntsman, mr. romneycare, etc., and their unbounded delight that a rino traitor like AMNESTY-JOHN mccain was nominated in 2008.

Where is the missing link in evolution–there is none because it is a bogus theory. The MSM is in full denial regarding the belief of the majority of Americans in creationism and continues to run stories on the few who believe in evolution. As far as global warming, perhaps the use of chemtrails containing barium and aluminum in conjunction with HAARP are altering our climate. Could it be the UN’s Agenda 21 initiative to control the world’s population and food supply by partnering with large corporations such as Monsanto and Bayer that are changing the biosphere through genectically altered life such as roundup ready corn? Where are the so called environmentalists when it comes to geoengineering , chemtrails and GMOs? Look at the sky folks, those streaks in the sky causing clouds you see are manmade in most instances and are followed by severe weather within 48 hours. Aluminum is known to cause Alzheimers and autoimmune diseases.

Georgie_Bushie|Aug 21, 2011 12:01PM – What do you think the federal government is operating off of right now, ‘nothing’…LOL? – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – Even the casual observer should realize that the government has been running on a series of “Continuing Resolutions”. These “Continuing Resolutions” occured while the Democrats controlled the Presidency, House and Senate. The Democrats either couldn’t agree on a budget or tried to conceal how out of control their spending was! The President presented a budget which couldn’t get even votes of his own party. (It as a joke but no one is laughing)

Why is this guy considered a Republican? Just like the rest of the super extremist liberals he says you cant question the THEORY’S of man made global warming, evolution or the sustainability of unlimited government borrowing and spending because it makes you anti-science to question the theological planks of the liberal religion?
So are choice should e between Obama and Obama light? What exactly is the difference between the two?

COMMON_SENSE, Aug 21, 2011 5:28:41PM:
“Georgie_Bushie|Aug 21, 2011 12:01PM – What do you think the federal government is operating off of right now, ‘nothing’…LOL?- – - Even the casual observer should realize that the government has been running on a series of “Continuing Resolutions”. These “Continuing Resolutions” occured while the Democrats controlled the Presidency, House and Senate. The Democrats either couldn’t agree on a budget or tried to conceal how out of control their spending was!”
======================================
LOL! You’re apparently don’t even fit into the “casual observer” crowd. There were 7 “CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS” leading up to the final agreement on the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. The last continuing resolution was approved by congress on April 9th, 2011….to approve funding until the final budget was voted on, on April 15th 2011 and signed into law, thus becoming Public Law 112-10.
Oh, and for your education, regarding your comment, “These “Continuing Resolutions” occured while the Democrats controlled the Presidency, House and Senate.” …….. LOL! …. Go educate yourself on previous “CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS” when Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House (January 2001 to January 2007). Here are the number of continuing Resolutions for each of those years:
2001 Budget = 21 CRs before the final budget was approved.
2002 Budget = 8 CRs before the final budget was approved.
2003 Budget = 8 CRs before the final budget was approved.
LOL!…. You act as if this Continuing Resolution stuff is a new thing, created by Democrats. Educate yourself… the first time the nation used a “Continuing Resolution” was when we had a Republican Senate and Republican House in 1995, and then they even used them in 2001, 2002, and 2003, when they had G.W. Bush as the president. … LOL! … CR’s were created by the Republicans.

Posted by: J HERRERA | Aug 21, 2011 10:27:16 PM
I’m glad to report President Obama is an excellent president handling a very difficult time in American history with great skill and leadership.
Would that the disgusting Republican politicians had even a shred of his integrity. Republicans learned too much from Atwater and Rove – the smear, fear and attack mode of politics. I hope they suffer, suffer, suffer for it.

How to Huntsman’s principles and beliefs match up to those of the Republican party?

He seems the sanest of the Republican candidates.

ABC News: “Jon Huntsman Comes Out Swinging”
He’s on his way out right behind the other tantruming RINO, Pawlenty. Why do they continue to waste our time? Only real conservatives need apply for the 2012 Republican nomination!
Posted by: Anonymous
______________
Since the frontrunner of the Republican field is Mitt Romney, a moderate, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
We CAN say on the Democratic side that only true LIBERALS need apply. Obama is as far left as one can get.

Faurtz: The British Parliament and the House of Commons has everything to lose if these climate scientist were not cleared of the charges.
If the scientists were cleared and the British public knew that global warming was not a threat, there would be an outcry. The British government would lose power and influence.
Climate control calls for strict regulation and more government. This is why people who want more government support the AGW scientists. The British government had a motive for clearing the scientists.
What Patrick was trying to tell you was HOW the AGW scientists were fraudulent in their data and he has a very valid point.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. You should WELCOME another scientific view as opposed to your own. Instead I see you fighting him at every turn.
This shows AGW is not a science. It is more of a religion.

Note to Skip: Reagan did what he did by doing both things..lowering deficit and producing revenue…which is what Obama wants to do. One cannot succeed without the other. Every economist has stated this fact..without increasing revenue..we will not be successful and that is where having the rich lose some of their wonderful perks is necesdsary. They need to be made to bring some of that money they are hiding in foreign banks back to the U.S. where they made that money. It is time for them to support their government who made this possible with the gigantic tax breaks. The middle class, who is doing the spending gets no breaks at all, so my solution to this is to take away the tax breaks to any corporation that is sending jobs overseas. It is easy to check..we know a few already and that is the answer to recovering some of the revenue we so badly need. Another fact is that since the rep. governors have gotten in power in several states in 2010..the job losses have increased two fold because they have laid off cops, firemen, teachers and garbage men, etc. to cut their deficit all the while continuing to give more tax breaks to the corporations who gave them money to win this election. Fair..No…what should we do…take away some of the tax breaks on them. Please do not say they are the job producers…WHERE ARE THE JOBS THEY HAVE HAD THESE BREAKS UNDER BUSH AND IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE. I realize Obama continued them sadly but he did it to keep unemployment benefits for those out of work. However, I doubt if he will do it again.

Your charge is inaccurate. The best you can possibly claim is the models did not predict the rate of increase completely accurately. This doesn’t make them wrong. The general consensus is that temperatures are increasing
by Skip
_______________________
The average temperature of the earth is 59 deg F and is actually going down by a few percentages.

ANONYMOUS: “He’s on his way out right behind the other tantruming RINO, Pawlenty. Why do they continue to waste our time? Only real conservatives need apply for the 2012 Republican nomination!”
SPIKE: “Since the frontrunner of the Republican field is Mitt Romney, a moderate, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.”
Romney is no where near as moderate as Huntsman and Pawlenty, which explains why they have done so poorly. It is Romney’s moderation you speak of that causes him to continue to lose ground to more conservative candidates, like Perry.
SPIKE: “We CAN say on the Democratic side that only true LIBERALS need apply.”
And . . .

Politics makes my head hurt these days. It is becoming crazy, I say may the best man or woman win.

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | Aug 22, 2011 10:51:24 AM
In the end, there is this: If the denialists are wrong and we follow them by doing nothing, we lose everything on several counts, though short term the polluters and energy big shots will continue to do business as usual and it appears that will make them happy. If the pro-science folks are right, and we take steps we have everything to gain. Now here’s the bottom line, even if climate change theory turns out to be wrong, by changing our actions to account for it as if it were true, we still gain in terms of alternate energy innovation prior to peak oil, clean air, clean water, public health.
I personally think the deniers and contrarians go well beyond healthy skeptism and are not unlike the flat-earthers back in those Middle Ages you like to mention.

Kimberly —– I disagree…. pursuing the “agenda” of global warming will mean $TRILLIONS to the world… in costs associated with the changes, skyrocketing energy costs with unproven technology, unintended costs to industry, the shift of (redistributing) wealth from industrial counries to undeveloped countries… IF THEY CANNOT PROVE IT… they need to debate before they spend!!!

This really solved my problem, thank you!

Posted by: catman | Aug 22, 2011 1:01:19 PM
What you leave out is that world sees the need for alternate energy, technology and innovation meaning there is a global marketplace we are not pursuing or leading.
We aren’t adapting. We aren’t changing. Instead we have right wing reactionaries obstructing an opportunity.
I disagree with those who claim we wait because we might be inconvenienced short term. We come up with technology that the Chinese and Indian businesses will want to buy and utilize. We lead. No matter what, clean air, clean water, and good public health won’t go out of fashion… not in the long game.
In the end, there is this: If the denialists are wrong and we follow them by doing nothing, we lose everything on several counts, though short term the polluters and energy big shots will continue to do business as usual and it appears that will make them happy. If the pro-science folks are right, and we take steps we have everything to gain. Now here’s the bottom line, even if climate change theory turns out to be wrong, by changing our actions to account for it as if it were true, we still gain in terms of alternate energy innovation prior to peak oil, clean air, clean water, public health.
I personally think the deniers and contrarians go well beyond healthy skeptism and are not unlike the flat-earthers back in those Middle Ages you like to mention. They are also backwards business-wise. Better to be on the forefront.

“Any perceived gains would be wiped out by and replaced with the added and unnecessary burden such over-strict environmental policy would have on the economy.”
—
Only for the truly uninnovative and unscientific and unadaptable which America is not and has never been.
Leaders in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policy have 25 percent higher stock value and fastest-growing stock value.
Now, I happen to think climate change theory is legitimate if not perfect, and serious, but I also think it is only one of an array of problems facing capitalism as we know it. Those problem include peak oil, water and poverty.
If you’re a profit-maximizing capitalist who believes climate change is a hoax, you’ll still do exactly what you’d do if you worried about climate change, which is solve it and other perceived problems– real or not— at a profit. There are opportunities to make money on alternate energy, energy efficiency devices, tech to make environmental restrictions a non-worry.
Huntsman is right to look to science and innovation and possibility like Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower did. Thank God Republicans have no always been as short-sighted as they are now or we wouldn’t be leading the amazing lives we are now.

He hasn’t heard that Galeleo has been excommunicated by conservatives three hundred years ago. What are you doing there, Huntsman, if you have brains as you seem to have. The GOP and objective truth don’t mix. In GOP you say things and the sheep believes it. No evidence needed.

ZAZU: “No evidence needed.”
As is the case with global warming evangelists, who base their belief on theory, not fact.

To sane for the party of hate!

KIMBERLY: “So again, since you don’t seem to really understand: leaders in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policy have 25 percent higher stock value and the fastest-growing stock value.”
Your liberal studies and statistics mean absolutely nothing — especially given their lack of context.
KIMBERLY: “. . . cries of socialism and assumptions about my position on restrictions aren’t valid points or counterpoints.”
Schemes to redistribute wealth from one group to another, out of concern for global warming theory or otherwise, is indeed Socialism. You don’t have to specifically state your support for Socialism when it’s inherent in your every other word.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 22, 2011 10:09:18 PM
If what you dismiss is the regulation and not the science or the facts associated with the science, you’d be able to discuss the theory, tech, the global market for alternate energy and energy efficiency devices without getting so emotional and defensive and resorting to buzzwords and overwrought “wind” that means nothing really. Again, you haven’t said anything but repeat your fears about regulations– and that is all you really have. You’re afraid that acknowledging science will lead to restrictions and your slavish adherence to ideology (while pretending to care about liberty) insists that any regulation must be bad, wrong, “socialist” but, honestly, that slavish adherence to ideology puts a plank in your eyes when it comes to possibility and business opportunity. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic in its contradictions and the limits it puts on you. You’re in chains.
Do you really consider stock values “liberal statistics”? That makes me chuckle. Only in far right land. (shakes head).
No matter what, clean air, clean water, and good public health won’t go out of fashion… not in the long game.
In the end, there is this: If the denialists are wrong and we follow them by doing nothing, we lose everything on several counts, though short term the polluters and energy big shots will continue to do business as usual and it appears that will make them happy. If the pro-science folks are right, and we take steps we have everything to gain.. the whole world and our childrens’ futures. Now here’s the bottom line, even if climate change theory turns out to be wrong, by changing our actions to account for it as if it were true, we still gain in terms of alternate energy innovation prior to peak oil, clean air, clean water, public health.
I personally think the deniers and contrarians go well beyond healthy skeptism and are not unlike the flat-earthers back in those Middle Ages. They are also backwards business-wise. Better to be on the forefront.
Unfortunately, the GOP IS now the party of anti-science, largely because they’re letting themselves be ruled by the fanatically religious and reactionary teavangelicals.

KIMBERLY: “Do you really consider stock values “liberal statistics”?”
If the stocks you refer to are essentially subsidized by government spending or are “green” due to government regulation, your statistics simply represent the actions of a liberal government and nothing else. Since you conveniently leave those kind of details out, one can only assume.
KIMBERLY: “No matter what, clean air, clean water, and good public health won’t go out of fashion.”
I haven’t met a global warming skeptic that disagrees with that. Although, that doesn’t give government the right to over-regulate based on unproven, unscientific, politically motivated environmental theories. Government should only make and enforce laws based on provable fact, not the endless tyranny of unprovable theories.
KIMBERLY: “. . . are not unlike the flat-earthers back in those Middle Ages.”
Those who favor unproven liberal theories based on suspicious data and the unecessary and damaging government regulation that goes with it resemble your flat-earthers of the Middle Ages more than anyone in this debate. Nearly just as oppressive too.

As an x-republican who will not vote for any republican running…I have to agree with Mr. Huntsman…too bad he is a Mormon because the biased rep. family will never accept him…not radical enough…makes sense..they don’t like that. They like the types of Bachman and Perry who spout untruths and actual unreality. Bachman who now want people to earn less than the min. wage is a lunatic and I would not trust her with my dog sitting. How could she want to impoverish more people for the sake of corporations who are making money on the backs of these people and sitting on it. They have been told if Obama is defeated…we will give you more tax breaks so naturally, they want him out. Look at the states who recently elected rep. governors..corporations are doing very well but still not hiring. Unfortunately for them…they people are rebelling and trying to get them out before the 2012 elections so they do have something to worry about. Back to Backman..someone should have told her at least Mr. Rollins her campagin manager that no president controls the price of gasoline. No president wants more people on the poverty line, …my campaign slogan is: make Bachman a no turn president.