Reply With Quote
if not for that purpose, then why attack science?
But why not gain ground against possible attempts to implement cap and trade in the future?
if not for that purpose, then why attack science?
You don't think cap and trade is a huge issue?
On the contrary I expect extensive new regs to come out of the executive branch via the EPA, etc. Congress can only stop it by defunding it and they won't get that passed.
New Regulatory requirements can be defeated through litigation.
Risky. They can also be upheld through the same process.
Um, o? Political gain?
If this is their aim then I don't see how it contradicts what I posted.
Its a dead issue.
Like what? The EPA can't really do a damn thing without further legislation. I'll believe it once it happens.
Way back when, during the “Dan Quayle / Al Gore” debates…I was shocked that Dan Quayle was heckled for speaking up for the protection of the unborn…Now 20 years later, Republicans are to shut up & get over it? Shocking! It is a human life we are speaking of…The U.S. government should not be in the business of promoting & funding abortions in this country or any other…The reason that the Republican Party is so pathetic is that they have no backbone when it comes to morality; they roll over on every hot potato issue to avoid conflict…
As far as Republicans “now” being fiscal conservatives, when did that happen…This same party who inherited a huge surplus from Bill Clinton & in a matter of months turned it into a deficit?
Many Americans are fed up with both parties & want an alternative…Yet every time a unique person comes along who wants to deal with the reality of responsible spending they are ridiculed & called whacko’s or emotionally unstable…See Barry Goldwater, Roger McBride, Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, Ron Paul and I guess now the Tea Party…
EPA can run roughshod if they so choose. Take a look at how the Bush admin tied their hands, and you see the scope of executive discretion on full display
Obama admin would be more inclined to go through EPA to tighten up emissions requirements now that legislation is impossible.
Next time you see a bumper sticker that reads Darwinism: Fact-Free "Science" on the back of a pick-up truck come back and ask the question again.
general at udes dont usually find their way into legislators agendas. My take: Repubs are trying to dismantle any chance that any cap and trade legislation is EVER passed.
The threat of this happening is hardly worth what the GOP has in mind.
what?
This can't be serious.
There's no doubt this is an attempt to discredit the scientific community on global warming, parker. I've got no doubt that the GOP wants to avoid future run ins with cap and trade.
The point of contention is whether or not during a time of economic crisis with no imminent threat of cap and trade (if the Dems couldn't pass it with 60 in the senate then?) why the are the focusing on this other than political grandstanding.
I wish Obama would an intern if for no other reason than to save science becoming anymore bas ized by our ing "leaders".
So you are for sucking off the government teat when it gets you golf carts.
This is the reason for my skepticism.
Influence yes. But to think that this is just a general attack on the scientific community "just because" is not realistic. The repubs have power, and they are going to try to hit while they have a hammer in hand.
This can't be serious.
I don't see why it can't be both. Seems like a false dilemma to me.
Its not "just because" - I told you flat out that the reasoning is political. Why govern when you can grandstand?
two things:
1. political agendas can last over decades. Just look at how long Dems have been fighting for health care.
2. Even though the issue is dead in US as of this second, the issue is not dead internationally, and much of the contingent who would have us set up an international cap and trade system is not located in this country.
This issue will allow many international interests to profit big, and it also has implications for our allies and our foes abroad, so Repubs may see this as fighting against our tax dollars flowing off shore in future decades.
I am a believer in the beneficial potential of cap and trade to move tech and to curb pollutants, but I also believe that it is already impossible for us to implement such a scheme without immediate corruption. I think the issue has become politicized and greed has seen $$$ profit potential, and if we put C&T in place we will be delivering our tax $$$ into corrupt international hands.
This is why my faith in govt solutions to problems continues to wane.
Man, you are missing my point.
Spending time on that may come up a decade from now shows your level of seriousness when you have imminent problems that should be addressed NOW.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
