Sean said, “Interesting, why the hatred of Co2 but not for the idea that it contributes to climate change? I haven’t heard any arguments that we are in danger of suffocating the planet due to Co2 emissions…so if climate change is, as Krumm calls it, at best ‘overstated’ and at worst ‘total bunk,’ why bother spending one penny on reducing Co2 emissions?”

You don’t have to believe in man made global warming to be against smog/air pollution.

What needs to be understood is that if Al Gore came out tomorrow and said that shooting yourself in the head was going to jeopardize the future of humanity, there’d be two million dead wingers by Monday.
.

You don’t have to believe in man made global warming to be against smog/air pollution.

Apples and anvils. They are not the same thing.

Let me expand on this. Wanting clean air and clean water makes sense.

Tying that to man made Global Warming doesn’t work. Global Warming is real. But if man is not the cause, then how can man be the solution?

A lot of people say what will it hurt to reduce C02 emissions because we will get cleaner air as a by product. It could hurt a lot if it cost you your job. Or if your neighbor loses their job. Let’s clean the air. That is a worthy goal and it can be done without a world wide recession.

This C02 fantasy will unravel soon.

We can reduce our CO2 emissions to nil and it won’t make a bit of difference if the Chinese and Indians continue to expand their “carbon footprint”.

The answer is to eliminate the Chinese and the Indians.

That, or start a worldwide revolution.

>…as examples of “what Democrats believe on the issue.”

Yes, our cartoons impressions really are much easier to keep alive if we exclude those who don’t adhere to them.

Does this mean we get to exclude Ron Paul from all subsequent discussions on what Republicans actually believe about small government and adhering to the constitution?

Well, caricatures don’t appear (generally) out of thin air. Bottom line, Sean’s two examples are not representative of most Democrats’ position on this issue.

Your Ron Paul reference doesn’t make sense to me, sorry.

Sean’s two examples are not representative of most Democrats’ position on this issue.

I ride my 114mpg scooter for the health benefits, of course.
.

I thought it was because chicks dig scooters.

?

But I guess you’re saying that you agree with Ford, Jr. and . . . gosh, what is the name of that famous Democrat Governor of Montana?

But I guess you’re saying that you agree with Ford, Jr. and . . . gosh, what is the name of that famous Democrat Governor of Montana?

I don’t think Schweitzer is famous, but he did make his case on 60 Minutes some time back, I recall. One thing is certain: Their ideas beat the pants off of the current plan, which is to pretend that foreign oil isn’t causing us a whole lot of problems that will fix themselves.
.

Yeah, I just don’t think you, Ford, Jr. and the Gov. of Montana are bellwethers of the Democratic Party on this issue, and as far as pretending the issue doesn’t exist: I think that was Krumm’s point . . . that Thompson is wise to frame the issue the way he is.

that Thompson is wise to frame the issue the way he is.

Do you think it’ll be picked up by the GOP nominee?
.

Frankly, I haven’t thought that much about the issue . . . I was just poking at Sean for using those two particular Democrats as bellwethers.

That being said, I think the eventual GOP nominee should pick up on the theme. I think Democrats would pick it up, too, if they weren’t (a) seemingly convinced that independence which includes petroleum is hardly desirable, and (b) strategically unwilling to bolster concerns about “security” so as to undercut their “fear-mongering” line of attack against Bush and the GOP.

I think (a) is reasonable and defensible. Not (b).

Even as I type that, I can appreciate the hierarchy of values involved . . . if Democrats think the threat of Jihadism is overstated but the threat of global warming is understated, then independence without a decrease in CO2 emissions is unacceptable. And the whole issue of where our “investments” should go (or where they would be most effective) is a factor in the discussion.

What do you think?

What do you think?

I think I recognize the absurdity of trying to advise the opposing party better than others do.
.