On Oct 3, 12:53 pm, Alastair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 12:31 pm, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 4:18 pm, Alastair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 1, 12:16 pm, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 13, 3:28 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Anyway, I can't tell if you got my earlier point: She literally
> > > > > > admitted that man's activities can be attributed to climate change,
> > > > > > not that climate change can be attributed to man's activities.
>
> > > > > I can read all right. She mangled up that sentence.
>
> > > > And now she has done it again!
>
> > > > "I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in
> > > > climate."
>
> > > >http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palin-dis.html
>
> > > But she is saying what middle America want to hear. What's wrong with
> > > that?
>
> > If you have to ask that question, I think the proper syntax in this
> > context is: "What's that wrong with?"
>
> > She has an appeal to the social conservative right wing of the
> > Republican party, mainly because of abortion, guns, and Christianity.
> > That may be one definition of Middle America, but, unfortunately for
> > McCain, she is not doing well with the true middle of the electorate,
> > the swing voters.
>
> > She garbled her syntax on climate change again in the debate:
>
> > "I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes
> > in the climate."
>
> > This consistent "Palinism" (as they are being called) is interesting.
> > Not sure what to make of it.
>
> > Curiously, she is claiming the cause does not matter to the solution
> > of climate change. I had never heard anyone express that idea before
> > Palin.
>
> She is saying what Joe six pack and the hockey moms want to hear.
> What's wrong with that? You live in a democracy. Are you saying that
> they should not vote for who they support?
>
> Or do you think that democracy, like the free market, is going to lead
> us to disaster?
>
> Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Obama seems well ahead, so my views are not at odds with the
projected electoral college results. And, the fact one supports an
relatively unpopular candidate like Palin does not make you anti-
democracy.
The USA is a republic, far from a direct democracy, BTW. A vote in
Wyoming has about 40 times more impact than one in California.
Similar to the original republic, Rome, where a rich voter had a much
larger impact than a poor one. The big empty states in the US have
outsized impact. It's a result of the deal to pass the Constitution
back in 1787, won't bore you with the details.
The uneven representation in the Senate and Presidential elections
probably has the effect of making it harded to do anything about
global warming in the USA.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
