After Sandy, Bill Clinton rails against Romney on global warming
Source: cbsnews.com By Stephanie Condon
President Obama has temporarily suspended his campaign events in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, but former President Bill Clinton hit the trail on his behalf in Minnesota today and used the storm to explain why the president should be re-elected.
Speaking before a crowd of students at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Mr. Clinton recalled watching "the triumph of the moderate Mitt Romney" in the first presidential debate.
"He ridiculed the president for his efforts to fight global warming in economically efficient ways," Mr. Clinton said, adding that Romney said to the president mockingly, "You're going to turn back the seas." (While energy policy did come up in the debates, Romney never said that).
Mr. Clinton continued, "In my part of America, we would've liked it if somebody could've done that yesterday." ............
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57542533/after-sandy-bill-clinton-rails-against-romney-on-global-warming/
The Big Dog is on his way back from Fargo, where Heidi Heitkamp is about to defeat slum lord Sen. Rick Berg
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
skeewee08
(1,983 posts)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)From the article: Mr. Clinton said, adding that Romney said to the president mockingly, "You're going to turn back the seas." (While energy policy did come up in the debates, Romney never said that) .
However, Romney did say this in his convention speech: “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans" (which the article should have pointed out).
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)
Dubster
(427 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)...and now he can ever bring up good old "Way to Go Brownie" and his stupid comments.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)It's about time someone at the top brought up global warming.
R-5
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)There is no way to "fight global warming in economically efficient ways".
It probably took 3 to 10+ years for the earth to collect the energy humans burn in a single day by tapping into ancient reserves.
If you want to end global warming, it will likely require an end to the industrial economy & modern civilization (which a large amount of the world's citizens are just fighting now to obtain).
There is not enough energy to continue to create more energy, maintain our infrastructure, manage existing energy debt, invest in new forms of energy (that will not pay off for decades) and grow the economy.
Simply not going to happen. So any side trying to politicize this issue is merely practicing rhetoric.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)However, even though you are correct, it MUST be done, otherwise our planet is in deep doodoo.
Point blank: We MUST ELIMINATE all oil, gas, and nuclear-based energy production by 2050. For NOW, we must IMMEDIATELY CURTAIL its usage at LEAST 50%. Of COURSE this is not cheap, as people will have to adapt to the new reality: energy that doesn't destroy the planet comes at a cost. However, we have enough wind, solar, and other renewable technology to shift our focus to producing those items.
There is a huge list of necessary processes, but they can't be done unless we eliminate the GOP from the fabric of our political society and our societal existence. But make no mistake: energy MUST be severely curtailed from its current usage in rich countries such as ours, and introduced properly into countries which lack such commodities.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)And if you check the sentence structure, you'll see Clinton didn't say he said it at the debate.
