• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Louisiana Republican Flees Interview When Asked About Obama's Birthplace

donsutherland1 said:
The question concerning her position on climate change was a serious question, as climate change is an issue that has come before the Congress in recent years and almost certainly will do so again.

In the past, Ms. Whitney stated, "Quite inconveniently for Al Gore, and for the rest of the politicians who continue to advance this delusion, any 10-year-old can invalidate their thesis with one of the simplest scientific devices known to man: a thermometer."

Lenar Whitney: Climate change is the biggest 'deception' - UPI.com

That statement would imply that she had seen information concerning temperature data indicating that the world is not warming.

Here's what the interviewer noted in The Washington Post:

Whitney’s brand of rhetoric obviously resonates with some very conservative Louisiana voters who view President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency as big-city elitists directly attacking the state’s energy industry and their own way of life. And she would hardly be the first “climate denier” elected to Congress. But it’s not unreasonable to expect candidates to explain how they arrived at their positions, and when I pressed Whitney repeatedly for the source of her claim that the earth is getting colder, she froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal or news source to back up her beliefs.

The most frightening candidate I

The gap between her unambiguous claim and her inability to respond to the question revealed that her unambiguous claim on climate change was nothing more than a hollow soundbite. Not every political leader will reach or accept the same conclusions on given issues (even matters where there is scientific or economic consensus), but the adoption of superficial positions that are little more than soundbites does not give confidence that such leaders will be willing or able to make informed judgments.
Click to expand...

Those who believe in global warming would also have difficulty outlining their beliefs in a scientific manner. Since global warming, or cooling, is out of her hands it is irrelevant to her candidacy. Certainly there are more important questions relevant where she is able to have some control rather than silly questions like this.

Its one of those 'do you believe in God' questions where the belief, and the positive response, is really the important part.
 
Grant said:
Those who believe in global warming would also have difficulty outlining their beliefs in a scientific manner. Since global warming, or cooling, is out of her hands it is irrelevant to her candidacy. Certainly there are more important questions relevant to where she is able to have some control than silly questions like this. Its one of those 'do you believe in God' questions where the belief, and the positive response, is really the important part.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

so, what you are telling us is that she does not need to have reason to believe that global warming is not real, that it is simply [<- specifically chosen word] a matter of "faith"

then you would also tell us that despite the scientific basis to find evolution real, that it too, could be denied only because of 'faith'

absurd
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

so, what you are telling us is that she does not need to have reason to believe that global warming is not real, that it is simply [<- specifically chosen word] a matter of "faith"

then you would also tell us that despite the scientific basis to find evolution real, that it too, could be denied only because of 'faith'

absurd
Click to expand...
Please read the post again. Evolution was not mentioned.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm no birther either. The original birthers were Hillary supporters so it sprang from politics. I can't believe anyone followed suit and kept it going. But I would vote for someone who for whatever reason thought there may be some merit to the story and said as much assuming that said candidate would be a good legislator in DC.
Click to expand...

There was a time, early on, when some doubt was (arguably) a rational or at least non-insane position. But really, after six years, there is a pile of evidence he was in fact born in Hawaii, and NOTHING to indicate otherwise. Furthermore, all the claims of the original birthers have been thoroughly debunked, time and again, often laughably so and so there is just nothing left to debate, unless there is a vast conspiracy across the entire State of Hawaii government, the U.S. government, including the passport office, CIA, FBI, etc.

Anyway, I'm biased, but the birther line is to me a line that in 2014 can't be crossed by serious people who want to serve in a serious office. In my view, it reflects a basic contempt for facts and/or a willingness to take a position contrary to ALL KNOWN FACTS, and that disqualifies someone as an elected official in my view.

Donald I think let his grandiose demeanor get in the way of clear thinking when he went there.
Click to expand...

Well, he's a shameless, self promoting huckster, which is fine.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, I'm confused by your post. You call them nutjobs, and yet you say this:

Oh, wait!!! "...others may (I thought it read, "and I sure DO!)... My bad.

Never mind.
Click to expand...

No problem! I thought there must have been a wire crossed there.. ;)
 
Grant said:
Those who believe in global warming would also have difficulty outlining their beliefs in a scientific manner. Since global warming, or cooling, is out of her hands it is irrelevant to her candidacy. Certainly there are more important questions relevant where she is able to have some control rather than silly questions like this.

Its one of those 'do you believe in God' questions where the belief, and the positive response, is really the important part.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not that difficult. I accept humans are affecting the climate, and there is a potential this effect could have serious long term, very negative consequences, because that's the opinion of most of the world's scientific bodies and of the large majority of active climate researchers. The tough question is what should be done to mitigate our effect, which is limited by cost and what we'd get if we incurred those costs, etc.

But what you believe about AGW has, or could have, a huge influence on a number of major policy choices. So it's nothing like "Do you believe in God." If you believe AGW is a threat, you must support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, which means supporting alternatives, and discouraging the use of fossil fuels. If you believe AGW is a threat and the response is to 'do nothing' then that says a lot too - 'f the next generation if it means a sacrifice today,' among other things.

I just don't see how you can see the AGW question as irrelevant for public office at the national level.
 
Bypassing the bevy of progressive pivot-men to this circle jerk of a thread, how many progressive candidates did this same 'reporter' ask the same question to?
 
When Congressman Cassidy running neck-and-neck with Sen. Landrieu is asked this question, he loses the run-off in December .
 
JasperL said:
Well, it's not that difficult. I accept humans are affecting the climate, and there is a potential this effect could have serious long term, very negative consequences, because that's the opinion of most of the world's scientific bodies and of the large majority of active climate researchers. The tough question is what should be done to mitigate our effect, which is limited by cost and what we'd get if we incurred those costs, etc.

But what you believe about AGW has, or could have, a huge influence on a number of major policy choices. So it's nothing like "Do you believe in God." If you believe AGW is a threat, you must support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, which means supporting alternatives, and discouraging the use of fossil fuels. If you believe AGW is a threat and the response is to 'do nothing' then that says a lot too - 'f the next generation if it means a sacrifice today,' among other things.

I just don't see how you can see the AGW question as irrelevant for public office at the national level.
Click to expand...

You just used the phrase "If you believe AGW is a threat". The words "If" and "believe" pretty much sums up the connection to religion.
 
Summerwind said:
Except the only way to know if you want to even see what she does, is by listening to what she says. Are you suggesting that one should be elected regardless of what they say? And then the electorate should just live with it, even if what she'd been saying indicated that she was too stupid to be of any use to anyone? How bizarre. But I guess it confirms the idea that Republicans idolize ignorance.
Click to expand...

I'll make sure that the candidates for my representative aren't stupid and you do the same. What goes on in another district is just team sports.

Amazing that you had that entire monolog and I didn't even have to say anything, the end result is that you confirmed your own hypothesis in a vacuum. Brilliant!
 
JasperL said:
But if she's not a birther, the question takes one second to answer. "Hawaii." That's not remotely like "have you stopped beating your wife." That question presumes the person is a wife beater. That's the first problem. The second problem is that because of the assumption embedded in the question, it cannot be answered without providing the questioner with a line of additional attack.

A simple answer to "where was Obama born" presumes nothing. It's a straightforward question. You can ask me that right now and I'll end the discussion right away. Hawaii!

Or, maybe she's a birther, and lots of voters, me included, want to know before we cast our votes for a birther. Clinging to that conspiracy nonsense tells me something very important about a candidate - IMO they're stupid, or pander to the stupid. But maybe you think the opposite - if they believe Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no question, THEY are the stupid ones. Either way, it's a distinguishing viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Your Location is listed in Tennessee, she is located in Louisiana. Get a grip.
 
shrubnose said:
A Republican congressional candidate fled her interview with a major election-forecasting group after being asked why she believed that global warming was a hoax and whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States, according to a new report in the Washington Post.

Read more here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/louisiana-republican-flees-interview-asked-115123316.html




This lady was obviously not well prepared for this interview.

Kind of reminds me of Sarah Palin.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

My thought is the Media sure is working hard for the Democrats.
 
Ockham said:
My thought is the Media sure is working hard for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

my thought is she made it easy for the media to publish a negative story
 
tres borrachos said:
At least she doesn't think Guam is about to capsize. Of course that idiot got re-elected by his idiotic constituents.
Click to expand...

I think politicians should be questioned and responsible for stupid thing they say, and the Guam thing was pretty stupid.
 
When the GOP and its posters are desperate, they always go back to the original deck of Nixon cards.
In this case, Ockham used the Spiro Agnew "beat-up the press" card .
justabubba said:
my thought is she made it easy for the media to publish a negative story
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
When the GOP and its posters are desperate, they always go back to the original deck of Nixon cards.
In this case, Ockham used the Spiro Agnew "beat-up the press" card .
Click to expand...

Guess I hit that one on the nose. :lamo The media knows if the shoe fits, wear it... and they SO love the shoes.
 
Ockham said:
My thought is the Media sure is working hard for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

So only democrats want to know about candidates stated positions? Interesting...
 
Redress said:
So only democrats want to know about candidates stated positions? Interesting...
Click to expand...

Are you seriously claiming this incident wasn't "gotchya politics"?
 
justabubba said:
my thought is she made it easy for the media to publish a negative story
Click to expand...

Who benefits from such an easy negative story other than the media company that shows it?
 
americanwoman said:
Could you just imagine if someone did that during an interview? :lamo
Click to expand...

At times it's not to worth debating the fictitious - especially when your hate via hatred and the questions are conspiracy in nature...

This is why I am consistently cruel do democrats and progressives ..... They use their questions to pander to their dumb voters who only vote on hate and self salvation.
 
NIMBY said:
When the GOP and its posters are desperate, they always go back to the original deck of Nixon cards.
In this case, Ockham used the Spiro Agnew "beat-up the press" card .
Click to expand...

ah, the disgraced vice president, spiro agnew on the media:
an effete corps of impudent snobs
Click to expand...
In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club—the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.
Click to expand...
such a colorful, if dishonest republican [but then i repeat myself] wordsmith
 
Ockham said:
Who benefits from such an easy negative story other than the media company that shows it?
Click to expand...

but all she had to do was cite her reasons for finding global warming to be an invalid belief
and she only had to acknowledge that Obama was American born and thus eligible to be our nation's president
but she did not
instead, she scurried away, unable, if not unwilling, to defend her own previously issued statements
 
Ockham said:
Are you seriously claiming this incident wasn't "gotchya politics"?
Click to expand...

she made it public knowledge that she did not find global warming real
why should she not have been asked about that topic
 
Grant said:
Those who believe in global warming would also have difficulty outlining their beliefs in a scientific manner. Since global warming, or cooling, is out of her hands it is irrelevant to her candidacy. Certainly there are more important questions relevant where she is able to have some control rather than silly questions like this.

Its one of those 'do you believe in God' questions where the belief, and the positive response, is really the important part.
Click to expand...

I realize that the debate, at least to some, has taken on theological characteristics. However, she could easily have addressed the question using some of the arguments AGW opponents have used. One can find those in numerous threads here in the climate change section. For example, she could have argued that the warming has not been as great as the models had forecast. She could simply have argued that natural variability might explain much of the warming. That her positions would not be supported by most climate scientists would be irrelevant for her purposes. She would simply be explaining why she felt as she did.
 
Ockham said:
Are you seriously claiming this incident wasn't "gotchya politics"?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to suggest that asking a candidate about their positions is " gotcha politics".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom