Republican 2012 Presidential Nominee

[ckamo]

Ron Swanson?

[Sharpshooter]

Jon Huntsman: Climate Change Science 'Not Enough' For US Action

Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and current Republican presidential candidate, earned accolades from environmental advocates earlier this year for denouncing his fellow presidential contenders -- chiefly Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann -- for their regressive views on matters of science, including human-induced global warming.

"When you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution -- " said Huntsman during an early September debate. "All I'm saying is that in order for the Republican party to win, we can't run from science."

Now it appears that Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China who has been trailing badly in the polls, is recalibrating his own thoughts on the science behind global warming.

At an event hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday, Huntsman was asked whether he believed that human beings are "significantly or primarily contributing to the earth's warming climate," and if so, what policies he would put in place to address the issue.

"The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation about what might lie beneath all of this," Huntsman responded, "but there's not enough information right now to be able to formulate policies in terms of addressing it overall -- primarily because it's a global issue. We can enact policies here, but I wouldn't want to unilaterally disarm as a country. I wouldn't want to hinder job creators during a time when our economy is flat."

Tim Miller, a spokesman for Huntsman, said in an email, "Governor Huntsman's comments today are consistent with his view that he trusts the body of science on global warming, but there's not global consensus and we can't disarm or hurt our job creators since this is a global problem."

Huntsman's finessing of his message comes against the backdrop of global climate talks in Durban, South Africa, where delegates are struggling to find a way forward on a variety of proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions and help poor nations deal with the impacts of climate change. Chief among the obstacles to progress in Durban is lack of consensus among major emitters of the industrialized world -- principally the United States -- and the rising industrial powers of the developing world, including India, Brazil, South Africa and China.

Among other things, U.S. negotiators want to establish a clear, unconditional pathway for countries like China to come under emissions restrictions before any talk of a long-term climate treaty can move forward.

"When you've got other nations that are major emitters, and if they not willing to play by the same playbook," Huntsman said Tuesday, "then you've got a real problem."

Later in the discussion, a reporter asked Huntsman whether he supported the current U.S. goal, which President Obama endorsed at the Copenhagen climate conference two years ago, of reducing domestic emissions by 17 percent over 2005 levels by 2020.

"Our goals need to follow some recognition of science by all the major emitters, and I'm not sure that's the case today, and therefore our goals become a little problematic," Huntsman replied. "We can pursue goals and have remedies in terms of how we're gong to achieve those goals, but if we're reading from a different scientific text than the Chinese or than, say, the Indians, then I think we're going to come up with different policy fixes that might make our own journey more onerous than that the Chinese might be taking, and it might debilitate economic recovery in this country or hobble job creators and I think that would be a very bad outcome."

China has recently signaled that, with some preconditions, it would be willing to commit to a binding treaty that comes into force after 2020, though it remains unclear whether this will advance negotiations in Durban.

Substantial scientific evidence does suggest that the planet is warming and that human beings are contributing to it.

A study published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, reviewed the publication and citation data of 1,372 of the globe's most frequently published climate researchers. It found that virtually all -- between 97 and 98 percent -- of them were found to support the basic notion of anthropogenic climate change, or climate change that is attributable to human activity.

The basic science is also accepted and supported by most of the nation's most venerable scientific institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Geological Society of America, among others.

In August, Huntsman even invoked the National Academy of Sciences in scolding the Republican Party for embracing anti-science positions on matters like evolution and climate change.

"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem," he told an interviewer. "We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position."

[Gretzky's Mullet]

I'd like to think that Huntsman is backpedaling a bit not because he has lost his steam on the science of climate change, but because he knows appearing to value the environment over money is a death sentence for a Republicon.

[The Situation]

[The Situation]

Who the heck is Gary Johnson in the poll? I never heard of that guy.

[unbridled_id]

"The economy has been in the dumpster and even FDR didn't drag it out in three years but FDR didn't face the partisanship and brinksmanship Obama is facing now."

If you read what I said and what was true he had both houses of Congress and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. He has had three years and has been a failure, time to move along.

By the way is that Che is your signature... ? Who is not a minority by the way ?

[The Situation]

"The economy has been in the dumpster and even FDR didn't drag it out in three years but FDR didn't face the partisanship and brinksmanship Obama is facing now."

If you read what I said and what was true he had both houses of Congress and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. He has had three years and has been a failure, time to move along.

By the way is that Che is your signature... ? Who is not a minority by the way ?

[Sharpshooter]

Even with both houses, would that have been enough without some radical policies to bring America back to being prosperous in just two years?

I believe that is Che. I don't think that "We are not a minority" has much of a specific meaning to it. I just use it as a sig because its a nice piece of art.

[unbridled_id]

Even with both houses, would that have been enough without some radical policies to bring America back to being prosperous in just two years?

I believe that is Che. I don't think that "We are not a minority" has much of a specific meaning to it. I just use it as a sig because its a nice piece of art.

[The Situation]

It was a tribute to Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara during the Chicano Park struggle of the 1970's in San diego.

It was the original 'Occupy' movement, that expressed Chicano community outrage of the living conditions in the barrios back then and represented the plight of Mexicans in the U.S. back in the 60's and 70's.

A similar outrage can be seen today at gov't and business for many of the same reasons of that 70's political struggle.

Thee's a lot of history, anger and struggle behind that mural in your sig. You should research it and read up on it.

By the way, the mural was also used in Tupac's music video 'To Live and Die In L.A.'

[Satan's Evil Twin]

It was also used in Black Eyed Pea's, Where is the Love? That is where I remember first seeing it. Then I copied this sig from someone on another forum.

[The Situation]

It is rare for a president to not only have both houses but a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. You have to judge a person on their record and accomplishments, and while Barry did little before he certain has a record now.

I too encourage you to study Che and focus on what he stood for and what he accomplished.

[Sharpshooter]

It was also used in Black Eyed Pea's, Where is the Love? That is where I remember first seeing it. Then I copied this sig from someone on another forum.

[The Situation]

Well, you may want to go learn about it, other than saying it's a pretty picture you saw in a Black Eyed Peas video....in case someone asks again.

Just sayin'

[The Situation]

Romney is definitely Mr. Corporate America. I wouldn't be surprised if his idol is Gordon Gekko.

Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney: Who Funds Them?

By Joe Romaine: Subscribe to Joe's RSS feed

December 9, 2011 3:54 PM EST

If you want to know the truth, follow the money. Or so says conventional wisdom.

The 2012 GOP nomination race is shaping up to be a three-man contest between Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Paul’s support has steadily climbed. Romney is persistently the front-runner until the “flavor of the month” candidate displaces him. Gingrich may very well be the current “flavor of the month” candidate.

So who are they funded by? This question matters for two reasons. It betrays who the candidate would benefit because those individuals would presumably donate to the candidate. It may also betray who the candidates “owes” once he is elected.

Paul

48 percent from small individual contributions

Ron Paul for Congress Cmte, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Mason Capital Management, Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Overland Sheep, IBM*

Gingrich

43 percent from small individual contributions

Rock-Tenn Co, Poet LLC, First Fiscal Fund, Pull-A-Part Inc, Amway/Alticor Inc, State Mutual Insurance, American Fruits & Flavors, Streck Inc, Windway Capital, Wirco Inc*

Romney

10 percent from small individual contributions

Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp, JPMorgan Chase*

*From OpenSecrets.org: The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

Total Raised

Mitt Romney - $32 million

Ron Paul - $13 million

Newt Gingrich - $3 million

Discussion

Romney notably fails to attract the so-called “99 percent” and relies heavily on the so-called “1 percent.” Gingrich and Paul were more balanced.

Romney has by far the most money of any GOP presidential candidates. Paul is third. Gingrich is woefully behind at $3 million, placing him 8th behind the likes of Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. (OpenScecret.org’s data, however, ends on Sept. 30, 2011, which is before Gingrich’s surge that started in November.)

Romney is flooded with money from Wall Street, notably from Goldman Sachs.

Gingrich’s top contributor, Rock-Tenn, is a packaging company based in his home state of Georgia. His second highest contributor, Poet LLC, is the largest ethanol producer in the U.S.

Gingrich’s cozy relationship with Poet underscores his “deep ties to an industry whose government subsidies he has steadfastly defended even while running as a fiscal conservative,” according to USA Today.

Paul’s top contributors, interestingly, is the U.S. military. Paul is noted for his non-interventionist stance, promising to bring home U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world.

This suggests that at least some members of the U.S. military support Paul’s position.

To contact the editor, e-mail: %20Ron%20Paul,%20Newt%20Gingrich,%20Mitt%20Romney:%20Who%20Funds%20Them?&body=%0A%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibtimes.com%2Farticles%2F264837%2F20111209%2Fron-paul-newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-funds.htm]editor@ibtimes.com

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/264837/20111209/ron-paul-newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-funds.htm

[Sharpshooter]

Well, I did Google it before using it as a sig and there isn't much to found on the internet about it besides who painted it, when it was painted, where it is located and how some Cuban exiles don't like it. I cannot really find a whole lot on the meaning but I assumed it was open to people's different interpretations. Personally, I think the meaning is that members of minorities should not see themselves as minorities because it is degrading to do so. That is what I saw the meaning as because I found it very empowering for some reason.

[Electro Rock]

Flash forward to 2011, and many of these pro Aztlan types are every bit as racist and abusive towards the often now non Chicano minorities as what Chicanos faced back in the day. I don't know why they are so pro Mexico/Aztlan when they or their parents came to the U.S. to get away from the racism and classism that would assure them 2nd class citizen status.

Anyway, of the Republican "nominees" I would go with Ron Paul, but any of them are preferable to the Alinskyite traitors who make up the leadership of the DNC.

[KoreanHockeyFan]

[Buggernut]

That video makes me laugh so hard everytime. The nice music, the casual look on his face with Perry walking into the shot. And then he softly adds in "liberal attacks," "war on religion," etc.

If any of these republicans get voted as president (Ron Paul being the exception), the U.S is truly ****ed.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Flash forward to 2011, and many of these pro Aztlan types are every bit as racist and abusive towards the often now non Chicano minorities as what Chicanos faced back in the day. I don't know why they are so pro Mexico/Aztlan when they or their parents came to the U.S. to get away from the racism and classism that would assure them 2nd class citizen status.

Anyway, of the Republican "nominees" I would go with Ron Paul, but any of them are preferable to the Alinskyite traitors who make up the leadership of the DNC.