• 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!

Obama administration formally declares danger of carbon emissions

Have you heard about all the jets, limos, posh hotels and other luxuries being procured and used in Denmark? There ought to be a taxpayer bootprint on Obama's ass.

Would you have the president fly commercial and stay in the Danish equivalent of Motel 6?
 
I am pro nuclear, very pro nuclear....It is the ONLY true alternative to coal. Wind and solar are at best supplements, and never will be alternatives...

i'm so pro nuclear i'd let them build one in my backyard. it would be sweet.
 
Have you heard about all the jets, limos, posh hotels and other luxuries being procured and used in Denmark? There ought to be a taxpayer bootprint on Obama's ass.

He's the leader of the United States. I'm sure you would like him to fly commercial so that he may be killed, however, most Americans do not.;
 
You bet your sweet ass I would. If for no other trip than this one especially.
So you would jeopardize the president's life? I guess there are those on the right that want Obama dead.
 
Would you have the president fly commercial and stay in the Danish equivalent of Motel 6?

Yes on the commercial, but I would have him stay in a tent in the yard.
 
He's the leader of the United States. I'm sure you would like him to fly commercial so that he may be killed, however, most Americans do not.;

Yeah, there are people on every flight, who are armed, that are there waiting for the off chance that the president is going to board that flight.

Uh, yeah!

A little less drama, folks. Please?
 
Yeah, there are people on every flight, who are armed, that are there waiting for the off chance that the president is going to board that flight.

Uh, yeah!

A little less drama, folks. Please?

Let's see, Airforce One or Delta Airlines. Yeah, I'd rathert have the president of the U.S. flying in Airforce One. Even though I disliked Bush, I'd rather not have the POTUS flying coach on a commercial airline.

It's funny how a D in front of a name changes the attitudes of conservatives. All of a sudden Obama should have less protection than Bush had.
 
It's funny how a D in front of a name changes the attitudes of conservatives. All of a sudden Obama should have less protection than Bush had.

I think that the actual standard is to put the R or D after the name. Just a comment :)
 
Saying the President of the U.S. should be flying commerical is retarded. Plain and simple.

Right because there's no way to make any other plane as safe as Air Force One. And he'd be just as safe flying first class with Secret Service as he was flying on AF1. the only difference is that it would be more cost effective and he would have to suffer the indignity of 1st class on a commoner's airline. OH THE HORROR!

And I do believe that any plane the President flies on is AF1 for all intents and purposes while he's flying on it.
 
Saying the President of the U.S. should be flying commerical is retarded. Plain and simple.


Agree'd, It would be if I said he should fly commercial everywhere.

But we're talking about him flying to a Summit, 1 time there and back, about Global Warming and our Environmental Footprints, amongst many OTHER leaders doing the same "eco-unfriendly" travel arrangements...
 
Let's see, Airforce One or Delta Airlines. Yeah, I'd rathert have the president of the U.S. flying in Airforce One. Even though I disliked Bush, I'd rather not have the POTUS flying coach on a commercial airline.

It's funny how a D in front of a name changes the attitudes of conservatives. All of a sudden Obama should have less protection than Bush had.

I never said that the president shouldn't be ferried around in Air Force One. I was only responding to the drama that was contaminating the thread. However, there is no reason the president can't sleep in a tent.
 
I never said that the president shouldn't be ferried around in Air Force One. I was only responding to the drama that was contaminating the thread. However, there is no reason the president can't sleep in a tent.
The SS can sleep in tents too. :mrgreen:
 
Right because there's no way to make any other plane as safe as Air Force One. And he'd be just as safe flying first class with Secret Service as he was flying on AF1. the only difference is that it would be more cost effective and he would have to suffer the indignity of 1st class on a commoner's airline. OH THE HORROR!

And I do believe that any plane the President flies on is AF1 for all intents and purposes while he's flying on it.

Can you imagine the security you'd have to go through to get on the same plane as the POTUS?
 
Hey, Daddy-o, who invented Cap and Trade? The Republicans under Reagan. To deal with Acid rain. Only they called it Market Driven Self-Regulation.

Say that out loud. Market Driven Self-Regulation. Do you understand what that means?

Before opening your mouth, you should get better informed.
Source or link?
 
I'm not willing to impose comprehensive and worldwide economic regulations based upon mere correlation.

Well, you can run a simple experiment yourself involving two jars.

That, and China and India will never cooperate.

Well, if you look at their recent statements, that's not true. IMO, China's more into it because they see green energy as a path to economic expansion and industrial growth away from low cost, low margin manufacturing. Whether or not they buy the Co2 issue is something else. They need to grow their economic base in a way that increases profits.

What interests me is that the nationalists see America as unlimited in potential, able to take on any problem better then anyone else. If they actually believed that, why not saddle everyone else with an obstacle if we can handle it better then they can and end up on top?

Inconsistent positions are everywhere here.
 
I tried to explain that to far-right sheep who post here without a lick of knowledge about science, gas, danger, etc.

They don't care. Unless Beck or Hannity say it's okay, it's not okay.

The far-right is now so-oooo conservative, they refuse to think for themselves. It's safer to let other people think for them.

The primary problem between Co2 and Sulfur emissions is that we actually had solid data on just how much Sulfur would cause problems. Something like down to the thousand ton margin of error. We don't have anything similar for Co2.
 
Back
Top Bottom