View Single Post
Old 06-17-2008, 10:40 PM   #4
iodigmaFemZem

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
440
Senior Member
Default
That's a charitable explanation, but there are other times he has said something similar where that explanation doesn't make sense. For example:

It's not quote mandatory caps. It's cap-and-trade, OK. It's not mandatory caps to start with. It's cap-and-trade. That's very different. OK, because that's a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. So please portray it as cap-and-trade. That's the way I call it. Or:

Russert: Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps.

McCain: No, I'm in favor of cap-and-trade. And Joe Lieberman and I, one of my favorite Democrats and I, have proposed that -- and we did the same thing with acid rain.

And all we are saying is, "Look, if you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, you earn a credit. If somebody else is going to increase theirs, you can sell it to them." And, meanwhile, we have a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

And of course, that contradicts the policy that he put out just recently.
iodigmaFemZem is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity