Romney loved Obama's deficit reduction plan...

Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real


Bucking skeptics, he urges changes

June 04, 2011|By Matt Viser, Globe Staff


MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.

After opening remarks in which Romney blamed President Obama’s policies for the new anemic hiring figures, the first questioner from the floor — a software developer from Hanover, N.H. — wanted to know the candidate’s position on climate change, an issue his opponents have generally avoided so far.
Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real - Boston.com

Global warming and temperature change is real, the question is, what causes it? The jury is still out on this. That's his point.

No....the point is Romney's vapid position on same.

It is a detriment to his campaign.


Romney: "I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

I am still waiting to see you link any details on anything from Perry, for jobs, for GLOBAL warming, for tax policy- does he support Ryan's cut, cap and balance, WHERE IS HIS JOB'S PLAN, where does he stand on trade, etc. etc. etc. So far, all you have done is attack Romney, give us a reason to support Perry, you are failing to do it. Romney has a DETAILED plan, so far I don't see anything but talking points from your candidate-- WHERE IS THE MEAT?????????????????
 
Global warming and temperature change is real, the question is, what causes it? The jury is still out on this. That's his point.

No....the point is Romney's vapid position on same.

It is a detriment to his campaign.


Romney: "I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

I am still waiting to see you link any details on anything from Perry, for jobs, for GLOBAL warming, for tax policy- does he support Ryan's cut, cap and balance, WHERE IS HIS JOB'S PLAN, where does he stand on trade, etc. etc. etc. So far, all you have done is attack Romney, give us a reason to support Perry, you are failing to do it. Romney has a DETAILED plan, so far I don't see anything but talking points from your candidate-- WHERE IS THE MEAT?????????????????

I noticed that you failed to provide this information right out of your own link, so I will do it for you.

Romney:

If elected, he said he would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy.

“We can’t just say it’s going to be all solar and wind,’’ he said. “I love solar and wind, but they don’t drive cars. And we’re not going to all drive Chevy Volts.’’
 
...when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Cut some spending and raise revenues was the order of the day under Governor Romney.



From Factcheck.org:

While we're at it, Romney again claimed that he didn’t raise taxes when governor of Massachusetts and that he faced a $3 billion budget shortfall. We have twice pointed out that Romney in fact increased fees by around $500 million during his four years as governor (a figure that includes both fee increases and “closing loopholes” in the corporate tax structure). Romney’s cuts in local aid also led indirectly to local tax increases (mainly in the form of property tax increases). Similarly, Romney’s claim to have closed a $3 billion budget gap is exaggerated. In fact, the gap was closer to $1.2 billion.


Romney is not capable of getting my vote. If he does win the primary. Third party time, again.

One word for you: Perot.

Any anti-Obama third party would give Obama a second term, and the end of America as we knew it.

That is what is said. It would depend on your perspective. The only thing I expect from Romney is the advancement of federal power.
 
Global warming and temperature change is real, the question is, what causes it? The jury is still out on this. That's his point.

No....the point is Romney's vapid position on same.

It is a detriment to his campaign.


Romney: "I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

I am still waiting to see you link any details on anything from Perry, for jobs, for GLOBAL warming, for tax policy- does he support Ryan's cut, cap and balance, WHERE IS HIS JOB'S PLAN, where does he stand on trade, etc. etc. etc. So far, all you have done is attack Romney, give us a reason to support Perry, you are failing to do it. Romney has a DETAILED plan, so far I don't see anything but talking points from your candidate-- WHERE IS THE MEAT?????????????????

Haven't you noticed that what I seek is a more conservative candidate?

I see Perry as more conservative than Romney.

Bachmann as even moreso.

But, I will accede to Wm. F. Buckley, who said: “The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win. If you could convince me that Barry Goldwater could win, I’d vote for him.”

That is my position.
 
Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real


Bucking skeptics, he urges changes

June 04, 2011|By Matt Viser, Globe Staff


MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.

After opening remarks in which Romney blamed President Obama’s policies for the new anemic hiring figures, the first questioner from the floor — a software developer from Hanover, N.H. — wanted to know the candidate’s position on climate change, an issue his opponents have generally avoided so far.
Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real - Boston.com

Global warming and temperature change is real, the question is, what causes it? The jury is still out on this. That's his point.

No....the point is Romney's vapid position on same.

It is a detriment to his campaign.


Romney: "I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

And?? What does that matter? So he believes in AGW, a stance that is supported by some data. There is nothing wrong with believing in AGW. What matter is how that affects his policies. I have not seen one thing that would suggest that he is going to jump on the regulate us to death because of AGW bandwagon. As a matter of fact, he seems more than happy to support oil in the short term and explore alternative energies for the future - the exact thing that we should be doing. That's a plus in my book....
 
Global warming and temperature change is real, the question is, what causes it? The jury is still out on this. That's his point.

No....the point is Romney's vapid position on same.

It is a detriment to his campaign.


Romney: "I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

And?? What does that matter? So he believes in AGW, a stance that is supported by some data. There is nothing wrong with believing in AGW. What matter is how that affects his policies. I have not seen one thing that would suggest that he is going to jump on the regulate us to death because of AGW bandwagon. As a matter of fact,

he seems more than happy to support oil in the short term and explore alternative energies for the future - the exact thing that we should be doing. That's a plus in my book....

1. "There is nothing wrong with believing in AGW."
Yeah, there is.
It is subscription to a fraud designed to institute both big government, and world wide governance.
Or haven't you been paying attention.

2."What matter is how that affects his policies."
Exactly.

3. "I have not seen one thing that would suggest that he is going to..."
This candidate has built a career on reversing positions, and critical ones at that.

While we have, sadly, come to expect prevarication from politicians, I'm going to take him at his word about the global warming scam.
It suggests support of the tyranny of the EPA which will wrest control of every aspect of our lives, if we let them...if a President supports same.

Beware.
 
Romney loved Obama's deficit reduction plan...

Given your series of Romney threads, should one infer you’ll not vote for Romney should he be the nominee? Or in an attempt to ensure Obama’s defeat, will you vote for Romney in any event? And if the latter, how can you justify the hypocrisy? Or is Obama ‘so bad’ that an act of hypocrisy can be excused.
 
...when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Cut some spending and raise revenues was the order of the day under Governor Romney.

From Factcheck.org:
While we're at it, Romney again claimed that he didn’t raise taxes when governor of Massachusetts and that he faced a $3 billion budget shortfall. We have twice pointed out that Romney in fact increased fees by around $500 million during his four years as governor (a figure that includes both fee increases and “closing loopholes” in the corporate tax structure). Romney’s cuts in local aid also led indirectly to local tax increases (mainly in the form of property tax increases). Similarly, Romney’s claim to have closed a $3 billion budget gap is exaggerated. In fact, the gap was closer to $1.2 billion.

Sure would love to know why Romney has not gotten one single question about his pro-global warming stance, in any of the debates.

Am I bordering on a conspiracy theory here, or are the powers-that-be making certain that conservatives don't have another reason not to support Mitt?

If he is the Republican candidate, it sure would take some of ths sting out of ObamaCare for the Dems....
You're right, PoliticalChic. The press is not grilling Romney at all. They want Romney to win because he's lost the last several races he entered, and they figure he'd be easiest for Obama to wipe out this time, too, since they're so close in philosophy.

I like former Massachusetts Governor Romney, but Rick Perry is the fighter who can duke it out with Obama and win on account of his success winning jobs in Texas.

It's funny how the leftist press screams and jumps up and down with its racism caterwauls against Republicans, but when one of us shows we are not racist, the leftist press, scared spitless, starts upping its faux praise of the less strong candidate, the one who keeps losing to somebody else.

The press only wants a smooth talker. They don't want a mover and shaker like Governor Rick Perry who would show Obama up, beat him, and get a majority in both houses. That, Perry can do. That Romney cannot do.

The Press is backing Obama, still, after he closed down oil in the Gulf of Mexico, wiping out thousands of jobs in the south, with resultant gas prices that keep Americans at home instead of going on vacations. Vacation spending is down, which means nobody is going to spend triple money on gas to go anywhere. The tourist industry is down so bad a lot of the proprietors of tourist industry areas are going out of business and laying yet more people off who at least had summer jobs.

The press doesn't really give a damn about people not having jobs, and they're showing it by highlighting Perry's shortcomings. I think it's just a case of stage discomfort. Others have so much more experience at talking in front of the entire world, but Perry has the jobs plan for all Americans, and not just migrant workers, a lie the press is just foisting on a public that doesn't really know as they skew numbers to make strong Republicans look bad.

They pulled this stunt off in the last election, pulling up the guy they could most likely defeat, and sure enough, McCain lost. They're repeating their history because they believe in making sure America goes down the socialist road. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it.
 
Romney loved Obama's deficit reduction plan...
Given your series of Romney threads, should one infer you’ll not vote for Romney should he be the nominee? Or in an attempt to ensure Obama’s defeat, will you vote for Romney in any event? And if the latter, how can you justify the hypocrisy? Or is Obama ‘so bad’ that an act of hypocrisy can be excused.


That's a good question Clayton. Da Goose asked it earlier.

I'll answer you the same way I answered him.

I haven't decided yet.

I held my nose and pulled the lever for RINO McCain in 2008, and I'm really not sure if I'm prepared to do that again.

I am hopeful my party will see the light, and I think they will.

Romney's a great speaker and he'll tell people whatever they want to hear to get their vote.

But, Obama is a world class speaker too and he fooled a lot of folks into believing that he was something he wasn't...a moderate Democrat.

I believe that Romney is so transparent that voters will see right through his conservative facade and nominate a candidate they can trust not to reverse themselves every time the wind shifts.
.
..

.
.
.
...

.

And now that I've typed a very Romney-like non-answer evasion answer...I'll give you the Perry-esque unvarnished truth...

Yes, I'd have to vote for Romney regardless, because Obamacare MUST be stopped and Ginsburg is betting Obama will win...when a Republican wins, they will swing the balance of the Supreme Court farther to the right.

Presidents, Senators and Congressmen come and go, but a Justice lasts a lifetime.
 
1. "There is nothing wrong with believing in AGW."
Yeah, there is.
It is subscription to a fraud designed to institute both big government, and world wide governance.
Or haven't you been paying attention.
So? There are a number of religious beliefs I could say the same about. I have an aversion to ID, it is nonsensical to me but I have no problem with a politician that ascribes to this theory as long as his or her policy is not derived from it. There are plenty of beliefs that a person may or may not agree with any given politician but that does not mean they are injecting that into their politics.

BTW, there is fraud in that theory AND there is good solid evidence. Simply put, it is quite possible that AGW is true. It just has not been proven yet. That is a BIG point as that is the reason that I don't see a problem with someone that buys into the theory as long as they are not going to make sweeping changes based on that theory.
2."What matter is how that affects his policies."
Exactly.
And? Where are those policies that are based on AGW? As I said, I have seen nothing to indicate that he is going to put 'green' reforms in that are unreasonable because he believes in AGW. Another poster in this thread even pointed out how he would oppose those changes in policy.
3. "I have not seen one thing that would suggest that he is going to..."
This candidate has built a career on reversing positions, and critical ones at that.

While we have, sadly, come to expect prevarication from politicians, I'm going to take him at his word about the global warming scam.
It suggests support of the tyranny of the EPA which will wrest control of every aspect of our lives, if we let them...if a President supports same.

Beware.
THIS is something that we can bite into. His tendency to flip flop is a MAJOR problem for me. I want to know what I am voting for before I pull the lever. I want to know that I can agree with his stances. This is the biggest problem that I have next to Romneycare. Those are giving me doubts about this guy far more than any belief that AGW is real.
 
OK, let me make sure I'm clear on this.

When Obama places a federal penalty fee on Americans who don't purchase health insurance, that's a new tax.

But when Romney raises a half a billion dollars in revenue by "raising fees and closing corperate tax loopholes (boy, that sounds familiar too)" to cover almost half of the Massachusetts budget shortfall...that's not raising taxes.
They are one in the same...now if PERRY would cease funding illegals in education?
 
Romney loved Obama's deficit reduction plan...

Given your series of Romney threads, should one infer you’ll not vote for Romney should he be the nominee? Or in an attempt to ensure Obama’s defeat, will you vote for Romney in any event? And if the latter, how can you justify the hypocrisy? Or is Obama ‘so bad’ that an act of hypocrisy can be excused.

It is not hypocritical, it is the old 'vote for the lesser of two evils' ploy. That is the way 90 percent of voters vote. No one is really capable of doing the job up to snuff, it is simply too large and too much responsibility so you vote for who you think will be the best under the current situation. Again, not hypocritical at all.
 
1. "There is nothing wrong with believing in AGW."
Yeah, there is.
It is subscription to a fraud designed to institute both big government, and world wide governance.
Or haven't you been paying attention.
So? There are a number of religious beliefs I could say the same about. I have an aversion to ID, it is nonsensical to me but I have no problem with a politician that ascribes to this theory as long as his or her policy is not derived from it. There are plenty of beliefs that a person may or may not agree with any given politician but that does not mean they are injecting that into their politics.

BTW, there is fraud in that theory AND there is good solid evidence. Simply put, it is quite possible that AGW is true. It just has not been proven yet. That is a BIG point as that is the reason that I don't see a problem with someone that buys into the theory as long as they are not going to make sweeping changes based on that theory.
2."What matter is how that affects his policies."
Exactly.
And? Where are those policies that are based on AGW? As I said, I have seen nothing to indicate that he is going to put 'green' reforms in that are unreasonable because he believes in AGW. Another poster in this thread even pointed out how he would oppose those changes in policy.
3. "I have not seen one thing that would suggest that he is going to..."
This candidate has built a career on reversing positions, and critical ones at that.

While we have, sadly, come to expect prevarication from politicians, I'm going to take him at his word about the global warming scam.
It suggests support of the tyranny of the EPA which will wrest control of every aspect of our lives, if we let them...if a President supports same.

Beware.
THIS is something that we can bite into. His tendency to flip flop is a MAJOR problem for me. I want to know what I am voting for before I pull the lever. I want to know that I can agree with his stances. This is the biggest problem that I have next to Romneycare. Those are giving me doubts about this guy far more than any belief that AGW is real.

1. "There are a number of religious beliefs I could say the same about."
Can't you keep a subject straight in your head???
Politicians direct governments.....their policies cause you to live your life in the ways they direct.
Religious beliefs are voluntary.
I'm surprised at you.

2. "...as long as his or her policy is not derived from it."
Bingo.
Think Al Gore....
...how would you like to live under the policies derived from the global warming scam?
Ditto Romney.
This is why we need a conservative, small government executive.

There is a pretty good chance the Republicans will control both branches. This is a potentially dangerous situation: look at the current result when same party has such power. Now add a candidate who believes the warmist nonsense.
See Lord Acton.

3. "...possible that AGW is true."
Wrong.

4. "Where are those policies that are based on AGW?"
EPA.

5. "I want to know what I am voting for before I pull the lever."
Take a look at Romney's history.

6. Now...this is key: consider the malfeasance of the Old Left Media in foisting off this empty suit in the White House...and look how they are making nice with Romney.
And how they are savaging Perry, Bachmann, Palin....
And take pause.

It is possible to learn from the past.
'Fool me once, ...."
 
1. "There is nothing wrong with believing in AGW."
Yeah, there is.
It is subscription to a fraud designed to institute both big government, and world wide governance.
Or haven't you been paying attention.
So? There are a number of religious beliefs I could say the same about. I have an aversion to ID, it is nonsensical to me but I have no problem with a politician that ascribes to this theory as long as his or her policy is not derived from it. There are plenty of beliefs that a person may or may not agree with any given politician but that does not mean they are injecting that into their politics.

BTW, there is fraud in that theory AND there is good solid evidence. Simply put, it is quite possible that AGW is true. It just has not been proven yet. That is a BIG point as that is the reason that I don't see a problem with someone that buys into the theory as long as they are not going to make sweeping changes based on that theory.

And? Where are those policies that are based on AGW? As I said, I have seen nothing to indicate that he is going to put 'green' reforms in that are unreasonable because he believes in AGW. Another poster in this thread even pointed out how he would oppose those changes in policy.
3. "I have not seen one thing that would suggest that he is going to..."
This candidate has built a career on reversing positions, and critical ones at that.

While we have, sadly, come to expect prevarication from politicians, I'm going to take him at his word about the global warming scam.
It suggests support of the tyranny of the EPA which will wrest control of every aspect of our lives, if we let them...if a President supports same.

Beware.
THIS is something that we can bite into. His tendency to flip flop is a MAJOR problem for me. I want to know what I am voting for before I pull the lever. I want to know that I can agree with his stances. This is the biggest problem that I have next to Romneycare. Those are giving me doubts about this guy far more than any belief that AGW is real.

1. "There are a number of religious beliefs I could say the same about."
Can't you keep a subject straight in your head???
Politicians direct governments.....their policies cause you to live your life in the ways they direct.
Religious beliefs are voluntary.
I'm surprised at you.

2. "...as long as his or her policy is not derived from it."
Bingo.
Think Al Gore....
...how would you like to live under the policies derived from the global warming scam?
Ditto Romney.
This is why we need a conservative, small government executive.

There is a pretty good chance the Republicans will control both branches. This is a potentially dangerous situation: look at the current result when same party has such power. Now add a candidate who believes the warmist nonsense.
See Lord Acton.

3. "...possible that AGW is true."
Wrong.

4. "Where are those policies that are based on AGW?"
EPA.

5. "I want to know what I am voting for before I pull the lever."
Take a look at Romney's history.

6. Now...this is key: consider the malfeasance of the Old Left Media in foisting off this empty suit in the White House...and look how they are making nice with Romney.
And how they are savaging Perry, Bachmann, Palin....
And take pause.

It is possible to learn from the past.
'Fool me once, ...."

1 - I DID keep the subject straight and referenced DIRECTLY one such belief that is held by many politicians but not used in their policy decisions. Abortion would be another such belief where many politicians at least claim that they are against it yet do not support legislation that would make it illegal. I could go on and on. The death penalty is another one that some presidents have been against as far as their beliefs but have not made policy on such a stance. Again, I do not know if Mitt would peruse an AGW agenda and you have not shown that he has, will or is even inclined too. Another poster actually posted something on the OPPOSITE of that stance. Do you have a single pice of legislation that he stood behind that would make such a belief into something more than simply a belief?

2 - see above + he is not Al Gore. As I understand it, he had something to do with one of Al Gore's campaigns though. Perhaps there is something there that would point to this AGW boogeyman that is being used against him. Can you bring something to the table other than he said that he thinks it might be true?

3 - if you ignore the simple fact that AGW IS a possibility then you are purposefully ignoring science for partisan zealotry. The earth is warming, quite possible a natural cycle. It is also possible that humans are part of the cause. Nothing has been proven yet to me and the impacts are not fully researched but to say it is impossible without evidence is below you. Please do not.

4 - Specifically where are MITT's policies that support AGW?

6 - Hey, never said I disagree BUT attack him properly and I can follow. Hit him with cheap shots and half truths then there must not be anything of substance. It is his flip flop record where the naysayers for his campaign should be focusing anyway to be honest...

BTW - comparing him with McCain is rather disingenuous in my book because NO ONE could have won the White House with a R by their name that year. Bush ruined it for that cycle.
 
State fees are not the same thing as targetted tax increases on certain members of society.

Apples and Oranges.

And as I said in the other thread. Even if you are accurate, it doesnt mean people are going to vote for Perry. If you want us to vote for Perry, give us a reason to vote for him. Not a reason to not vote for Romney.

I don't see a reason to vote for Perry or Romney. Neither of them will change the direction of this country, it will continue the same downward spiral no matter which of those two you vote for. Why? Because both parties are exactly the same on the major issues. Fixing our country would require a restructuring of our entire political system. Simply voting out Obama and replacing him with RINOs won't change a damn thing. It's not even a step in the right direction since nothing will be done about the major issues whether it's Obama, Romney, or Perry in office.

Romney and Perry will continue Free Trade Agreements like Clinton, Bush, and Obama did before them.

Romney and Perry won't do a damn thing about the border, except maybe some useless Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Romney and Perry won't do a damn thing about the deficit because neither of them have the balls to go after the real budget busters (Defense and entitlements).

Romney and Perry won't do a damn thing about China because they need China to keep buying our debt so they can keep spending like crazy.

Romney and Perry won't do anything the strengthen the US dollar, meaning the middle class and the economy as a whole will continue to get worse.

These are issues that both sides have proven they don't give a shit about. Do I need to go on?!
 

Forum List

Back
Top