Seriously, what's wrong with Jon Huntsman?

[JimH52]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

He is far too logical and he has too many rational ideas to even get a second look from the far right. They want someone extreme. Sadly, there is no one like that out there right now.

Too funny

somebody from the Left who supports Papa Obama
wants to talk about people supporting extremists

You are obviously angry because there is NO ONE from the extreme right that has a chance to gain the nomination for the GOP. You have Mitt and that is it. Learn it, like it, live it...Newt is just another RINO.

 

[Full-Auto]

science by consensus is not science
It is a belief system, like religion
One time the the consensus thought the earth was flat

Which explains a lot about the left
They think Papa Obama is doing a good job
They believe a lot of false things

Ignoring peer reviewed studies in favor of the opinions of radio talk show hosts is not science

Again, if the evidence is so compelling, why do climate scientists feel the need to fudge it?

Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Climate gate was proven to be a rightwing farce[/QUOTE]

Science is proven through demonstrations of experiments.

If this was a slam dunk. The evidence would make it a slam dunk and debate would end.

Maybe could be and possibly is what we find in all the reports.

Get it yet?

 

[rightwinger]

Again, if the evidence is so compelling, why do climate scientists feel the need to fudge it?

Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Climate gate was proven to be a rightwing farce

No it wasn't, turd. Committees stacked with warmist goons didn't prove a thing. They refused to even examine all the evidence.

It was a right wing fraud having nothing to do with climate studies...

Why should anyone be surprised!

 

[Avorysuds]

He comes off as a prick? He is crazy arrogant... ummm.... more or less he is just not likeable... Oh and many of his position lean greatly towards Paul's.

Oh, his jokes suck yet he keeps trying to make them.

 

[rightwinger]

Ignoring peer reviewed studies in favor of the opinions of radio talk show hosts is not science

Again, if the evidence is so compelling, why do climate scientists feel the need to fudge it?

Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Climate gate was proven to be a rightwing farce

Science is proven through demonstrations of experiments.

If this was a slam dunk. The evidence would make it a slam dunk and debate would end.

Maybe could be and possibly is what we find in all the reports.

Get it yet?

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

 

[Full-Auto]

Again, if the evidence is so compelling, why do climate scientists feel the need to fudge it?

Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Climate gate was proven to be a rightwing farce

Science is proven through demonstrations of experiments.

If this was a slam dunk. The evidence would make it a slam dunk and debate would end.

Maybe could be and possibly is what we find in all the reports.

Get it yet?

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years[/QUOTE]

Cute strawman

Fact, you do not have one experiment in play that proves the premise. We have a ton of maybes, possilblies and could bes.

But if I am in error post that one experiment that can not be refuted.

I restrained from calling you a blowhard. Although you certainly deserve it.

 

[JoeB131]

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a Left Wing proposal to ban all cigarette sales?

Or did they just advocate raising the price to produce revenues for their coffers and their trial lawyer buddies?

Now, I don't smoke, had a lot of relatives who died of cancer, no friend to the tobacco Industry...

Whenever I hear a liberal whine about the evils of cigarettes, I am reminded of Frederick the Great's comments about Maria Theresa at the Partition of Poland. "The more she wept, the more she took!"

Here's a simple solution to the tobacco problem. Get rid of all the Cigarette taxes. Regulate tobacco like a drug. You can only get it with a doctor's prescription. The doctor is required to do regular checkups, and if he sees problems, he has to try to ween you off of them.

But liberals won't do that. Too much money for "worthy" causes involved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I for the life of me don't know why Huntsman is even calling himself a Republican at this point. He gave up that right when he went to go work for Barry.

He’s what republicans once were: intelligent, pragmatic, non-ideologues who believed in responsible governance. The radical rightists who took over the Party about forty years ago are the aberration, the actual ‘RINOs,’ if you will.

So is Romney.

But unlike Huntsman, Romney is trying to come off as a rightwing extremist, needless to say it isn’t working.

Translation: He's a big government socialist.

Nonsense, there is no such thing. There are no ‘socialists’ running for president or who is currently president.

We want someone who will actually cut the size of government.

Who are ‘we’? Certainly not a majority of Americans and likely not a majority of republicans. You need to create a third party and run your fantasy candidate there; give the GOP back to true republicans like Huntsman and end this ‘National nightmare’ of rightwing extremism – it’s old, it’s boring, and a majority of Americans have had enough.

 

[JoeB131]

Clayton, it is dishonest for you to include quotes from several different posters in the same reply without attribution... as such, I will respond to what you said...

He’s what republicans once were: intelligent, pragmatic, non-ideologues who believed in responsible governance. The radical rightists who took over the Party about forty years ago are the aberration, the actual ‘RINOs,’ if you will.

So is Romney.

But unlike Huntsman, Romney is trying to come off as a rightwing extremist, needless to say it isn’t working

I guess you and I have different opinions as to what constitutes "repsonsible government".

I don't want a government that forces me to buy a dim lightbulb filled with mercury to save the planet from.... um, what exactly?

That's not responsible government, that's intrusive government. That's overbearing government.

And when a CEO of a company as American as Coca-Cola makes a statement that Communist China has a more business friendly climate than the US, we have to really stop and look to see what we are doing wrong.

When government consumes 6 trillion out of a 14 trillion dollar economy, and people are working until mid-May to satisfy their obligations to government, that's government that has grown too large.

 

[rightwinger]

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a Left Wing proposal to ban all cigarette sales?

Or did they just advocate raising the price to produce revenues for their coffers and their trial lawyer buddies?

Now, I don't smoke, had a lot of relatives who died of cancer, no friend to the tobacco Industry...

Whenever I hear a liberal whine about the evils of cigarettes, I am reminded of Frederick the Great's comments about Maria Theresa at the Partition of Poland. "The more she wept, the more she took!"

Here's a simple solution to the tobacco problem. Get rid of all the Cigarette taxes. Regulate tobacco like a drug. You can only get it with a doctor's prescription. The doctor is required to do regular checkups, and if he sees problems, he has to try to ween you off of them.

But liberals won't do that. Too much money for "worthy" causes involved.

Not talking about banning cigarettes

I am talking about the rightwing efforts to muddy the science linking cigarette smoking to cancer.........."There is no direct link"... "We need more study".... "we have our own scientists who disagree"

Sounds so familiar

 

[The Rabbi]

I for the life of me don't know why Huntsman is even calling himself a Republican at this point. He gave up that right when he went to go work for Barry.

He’s what republicans once were: intelligent, pragmatic, non-ideologues who believed in responsible governance. The radical rightists who took over the Party about forty years ago are the aberration, the actual ‘RINOs,’ if you will.

.

You mean like Richard Nixon?
I remember when Democrats were honorable men who genuinely loved the US. I dont recall Hubert Humphrey ever declaring about Vietnam, The war is lost, like Reid. And Humphrey was a staunch opponent of the war. I don't remember Sam Ervin sneaking major legislation through Congress like Pelosi. I dont remember anyone, GOP or Democrat, making a lying ass of himself on the House floor like ex-Rep Alan Grayson.
Now instead of McGovern, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson et al the Dems have Barney Frank and Harry Reid.

 

[Neotrotsky]

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a Left Wing proposal to ban all cigarette sales?

Or did they just advocate raising the price to produce revenues for their coffers and their trial lawyer buddies?

Now, I don't smoke, had a lot of relatives who died of cancer, no friend to the tobacco Industry...

Whenever I hear a liberal whine about the evils of cigarettes, I am reminded of Frederick the Great's comments about Maria Theresa at the Partition of Poland. "The more she wept, the more she took!"

Here's a simple solution to the tobacco problem. Get rid of all the Cigarette taxes. Regulate tobacco like a drug. You can only get it with a doctor's prescription. The doctor is required to do regular checkups, and if he sees problems, he has to try to ween you off of them.

But liberals won't do that. Too much money for "worthy" causes involved.

Not talking about banning cigarettes

I am talking about the rightwing efforts to muddy the science linking cigarette smoking to cancer.........."There is no direct link"... "We need more study".... "we have our own scientists who disagree"

Sounds so familiar

Yes it all does
"muddy" the science, strong words from such a scientist as you

The NYT Has Been Predicting Polar Ice Melt for 128 Years
no doubt these were "peer reviewed" as well



1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

 

[JoeB131]

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a Left Wing proposal to ban all cigarette sales?

Or did they just advocate raising the price to produce revenues for their coffers and their trial lawyer buddies?

Now, I don't smoke, had a lot of relatives who died of cancer, no friend to the tobacco Industry...

Whenever I hear a liberal whine about the evils of cigarettes, I am reminded of Frederick the Great's comments about Maria Theresa at the Partition of Poland. "The more she wept, the more she took!"

Here's a simple solution to the tobacco problem. Get rid of all the Cigarette taxes. Regulate tobacco like a drug. You can only get it with a doctor's prescription. The doctor is required to do regular checkups, and if he sees problems, he has to try to ween you off of them.

But liberals won't do that. Too much money for "worthy" causes involved.

Not talking about banning cigarettes

I am talking about the rightwing efforts to muddy the science linking cigarette smoking to cancer.........."There is no direct link"... "We need more study".... "we have our own scientists who disagree"

Sounds so familiar

Meaningless... And I'm kind of wondering who these "right wing scientists" were....

I know the Tobacco industry had them.

 

[rightwinger]

Climate gate was proven to be a rightwing farce

Science is proven through demonstrations of experiments.

If this was a slam dunk. The evidence would make it a slam dunk and debate would end.

Maybe could be and possibly is what we find in all the reports.

Get it yet?

As long as money can still be made, the rightwing will never accept ANY evidence

Hell....they protected the cigarette industry for 40 years

Cute strawman

Fact, you do not have one experiment in play that proves the premise. We have a ton of maybes, possilblies and could bes.

But if I am in error post that one experiment that can not be refuted.

I restrained from calling you a blowhard. Although you certainly deserve it.[/QUOTE]

Because the only experiment that will meet the conservatives stringent standards is.........Let's take a large vessel.......say the size of the earth, dump millions of pounds of hydrocarbons into it and see if there is any change

Anything less is insufficient

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Nothing wrong with vanilla. Voters are more in the mood for Picante candidates this year.

 

[bripat9643]

I for the life of me don't know why Huntsman is even calling himself a Republican at this point. He gave up that right when he went to go work for Barry.

He’s what republicans once were: intelligent, pragmatic, non-ideologues who believed in responsible governance. The radical rightists who took over the Party about forty years ago are the aberration, the actual ‘RINOs,’ if you will.

Translation: he's a sucker who will kick the football whenever the Democrats hold it for him.

Translation: He's a big government socialist.

Nonsense, there is no such thing. There are no ‘socialists’ running for president or who is currently president.

Wrong. Obama and practically every single Democrat in Congress is a socialist.

We want someone who will actually cut the size of government.

Who are ‘we’? Certainly not a majority of Americans and likely not a majority of republicans. You need to create a third party and run your fantasy candidate there; give the GOP back to true republicans like Huntsman and end this ‘National nightmare’ of rightwing extremism – it’s old, it’s boring, and a majority of Americans have had enough.

Wrong again. The majority wants Congress to cut spending. That's why the liar socialist tax-and-spend Democrats got blown out in the 2010 election. You're blowing hot air out your ass. The one thing we don't need is liar socialists telling us who the "true Republicans" are.

 

[bripat9643]

Because the only experiment that will meet the conservatives stringent standards is.........Let's take a large vessel.......say the size of the earth, dump millions of pounds of hydrocarbons into it and see if there is any change

Anything less is insufficient

The fact that you can't perform a conclusive experiment does not give you license to make up facts from whole cloth. That's the methodology of religion, not science.

 

[Stephanie]

I for the life of me don't know why Huntsman is even calling himself a Republican at this point. He gave up that right when he went to go work for Barry.

He’s what republicans once were: intelligent, pragmatic, non-ideologues who believed in responsible governance. The radical rightists who took over the Party about forty years ago are the aberration, the actual ‘RINOs,’ if you will.

Translation: he's a sucker who will kick the football whenever the Democrats hold it for him.



Wrong. Obama and practically every single Democrat in Congress is a socialist.

We want someone who will actually cut the size of government.

Who are ‘we’? Certainly not a majority of Americans and likely not a majority of republicans. You need to create a third party and run your fantasy candidate there; give the GOP back to true republicans like Huntsman and end this ‘National nightmare’ of rightwing extremism – it’s old, it’s boring, and a majority of Americans have had enough.

Wrong again. The majority wants Congress to cut spending. That's why the liar socialist tax-and-spend Democrats got blown out in the 2010 election. You're blowing hot air out your ass. The one thing we don't need is liar socialists telling us who the "true Republicans" are.

That's why the left loves him and Romney..

 

[Chris]

He seems like a sane and honorable gentleman to me. Why doesn't the right like him?

The fact that you like him is sufficient cause for denying him the nomination.

He's a RINO who believes in the global warming hocus-pocus.

enough said.

He's a witch! BURN HIM!

Does he float?

 

[bripat9643]

Translation: he's a sucker who will kick the football whenever the Democrats hold it for him.

That's why the left loves him and Romney..

Yep. There's nothing they like better than a patsy who will fall for all their scams. After the results become apparent, they blame it all on "failed Republican policies."