Custom Blogs Search:
- - -

 

 

 
« Back to blog News

What the hell happened to discussing climate change?

Posted by JOE.OSULLIVAN at 10:50 AM on Thu, Oct. 25, 2012

Climate_1.jpgWhat the hell happened to climate change? Nothing. It's still here. Smothering us like a wool blanket with ill intentions.

You wouldn't know that, of course, by tuning into election season. There, the candidates talk as if we can have bigger militaries and lower taxes and create elevendy-million jobs just by forking over our votes. Forty acres and a mule! A chicken in every pot!

But what we don't hear about is what either party will do about climate change. [If you want to know what global warming is projected to do to the Inland Northwest, see our story 'Scorched Earth.'] Probably because the most of GOP stopped believing in global warming — although former Gov. Mitt Romney kind of believes in it, depending on what election he's in — and Democrats, after losing on a plan early in President Barack Obama's term — are too scared to look like wimpy, out-of-touch treehuggers. Oh, let's throw media in there too, since none of the moderators of the three presidential debates even bothered to ask about climate change. 

Here's a good take on the absence of global warming on the campaign trail. And if you think global warming is a made-up plot by socialists trying to engineer a United Nations takeover of the Bible, relax. You probably won't have to hear about it again from politicians or the media for the rest of the year. 

 
Global warming wasn´t discussed much, but was mentioned repeatedly in the only debate so far that had has any substance. See the debate here: http://freeandequal.org/updates/did-you-miss-the-debate-watch-it-here/
None of the questions was directed at global warming, but it was addressed by the different candidates in regards to the budget, the role of government, the power of different organizations, etc.

You have your blinders on and are too fixated on Obama and Romney. Yes, one of those two will win, but it won´t matter which one. They agree with each other on all substantial issues. Both want to continue spending more each year and talk about balancing the budget sometime in the distant future when neither will be in office. Both want to attack innocent civilians in the Mideast and elsewhere around the world to create more enemies. Both think they can best determine how we should live our lives. They both denigrate each other because neither has much good he can say about his own accomplishments.

The four candidates in the real debate had different views, addressed substantive issues and gave real answers to the questions.

How can you expect to get what you want if you are wiling to repeatedly vote for something you don´t want? Oct 25, 2012 | Reply to this comment

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close