Al Gore

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern

After intitially reading this thread I wasn't gonna post, this is merely a repeat of a previous post here.

However, I came back because the above thoughts expressed by various members struck me as quite odd. People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money? It's all OK cuz he can afford to pay for offsets?

So I guess the USA, being the richest nation, is likewise allowed to have higher consumption/emissions than poorer countries?

Better get a memo on this out to the rest of the world, they seem confused and assert exactly the opposite.

Oh, and you might add in your memo since tons of USA scientists are researching global warming and raising awareness, the benefit more than outweighs the cost (of our emissions).

Fern

Our Nation is "allowed" to do anything it wants. But, I don't think you can argue that what goes for one man should go for the entire nation, that is fallacious.

I think that as a Nation, the US has great wealth, and great power. With that comes a great responsibility to other nations and the world. Which is to say that even though the US can afford to consume more of our worlds resources, doesn't mean that we should. Some of us recognize the importance of taking care of our planet and its resources. It doesn't mean that all of us do however...

When you apply that sense of responsibility to our nations policy (and policy makers), hopefully you come up with a measured sense of the need to protect our planets resources. I am not saying everyone is capable of drawing these conclusions, but people like Gore do. I respect him for that, regardless of the size of his estate (and how much energy it consumes.) I also appreciate his actions because he actually has the means to do something that makes an impact, whereas the rest of us just b!tch about it on a website.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte
[I also appreciate his actions because he actually has the means to do something that makes an impact, whereas the rest of us just b!tch about it on a website.

My family shares ONE 4 cylinder auto and lives in a 1,200 sq ft home (living in Europe heavily influenced me in many ways). Talk about a small carbon footprint!

My *E-penis is soo much bigger than Al Gore's.


* E= environmental


Fern

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: OrByte
[I also appreciate his actions because he actually has the means to do something that makes an impact, whereas the rest of us just b!tch about it on a website.

My family shares ONE 4 cylinder auto and lives in a 1,200 sq ft home (living in Europe heavily influenced me in many ways). Talk about a small carbon footprint!

My *E-penis is soo much bigger than Al Gore's.


* E= environmental


Fern

That is good for you and your family. In a sense you make an impact as well. I suppose influential more aptly describes Gore and his crusade.

whether you like it or not.

As for me, the best I can do is chase my kids from room to room and turn the lights off after them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tango
Hum.. I don't see the point... his house consumes 12 times what the average house does.... but considering it's a 20 bedrooms/8 bathrooms house why shouldn't it?

Hum... I don't see the point... SUVs consume much more gas than a hybrid does.... but considering it's a much bigger vehicle with much more power why shouldn't it?

Exactly. If you buy carbon credits to balance their consumption, I have nothing against SUVs (apart from their incredible lack of taste).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

They cant help it, it has been beat into their heads so much the past 6 years that anytime any criticism comes up on the left, pull the bush card.

The powers that be have trained them well. They are what most people call Sheeple.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
And he pays for offsets so his energy use is carbon neutral. Do you, since you inaccurately attack him for not being 'green'?

Originally posted by: Tab
......I think there's something else we ought to be looking at besides the power consumption of Gore's mansion. He's a millionare and millionares tend to have big homes that take up a lot of juice............

.............He's a wealthy man and I don't why anyone shouldn't be able to enjoy what they've earned. Do you think he should be living in a small 3 bedroom house? I feel like I am repeating myself but the above average power consumption isn't the issuse it's the nature of the use.............

Originally posted by: Tango
Hum.. I don't see the point... his house consumes 12 times what the average house does.... but considering it's a 20 bedrooms/8 bathrooms house why shouldn't it?

After intitially reading this thread I wasn't gonna post, this is merely a repeat of a previous post here.

However, I came back because the above thoughts expressed by various members struck me as quite odd. People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money? It's all OK cuz he can afford to pay for offsets?

So I guess the USA, being the richest nation, is likewise allowed to have higher consumption/emissions than poorer countries?

Better get a memo on this out to the rest of the world, they seem confused and assert exactly the opposite.

Oh, and you might add in your memo since tons of USA scientists are researching global warming and raising awareness, the benefit more than outweighs the cost (of our emissions).

Fern

I wasn't defending anybody, let alone Gore. I was just pointing out the fact that is normal for his house to consume 12 times more than average, based on the fact that it's 20 times larger.

The fact that he should have or not that house is debatable. Of course if you really want to fight against rampant energy consumption you would give a better image of yourself if you were giving the good example with very low personal consumption habits.

That said, he buys then carbon credits to offset his life style. So he might consume 12 times more than the average American, but how many carbon credits is the average American buying to offset his lifestyle?

While I don't consider Carbon Credits to be a serious solution to environmental problems it's at least a beginning. Too bad the whole market for carbon credits wouldn't be enough to offset US consumption.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

WWYBYB

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tango
Hum.. I don't see the point... his house consumes 12 times what the average house does.... but considering it's a 20 bedrooms/8 bathrooms house why shouldn't it?

Hum... I don't see the point... SUVs consume much more gas than a hybrid does.... but considering it's a much bigger vehicle with much more power why shouldn't it?

Exactly. If you buy carbon credits to balance their consumption, I have nothing against SUVs (apart from their incredible lack of taste).

If they really wanted to kill SUV's they should make it a requirement to get a Class A driver's license. Survey says 80% of soccer moms couldn't pass the test. Instead we have soccer mom's lobbying the government to make backup cameras mandatory equipment on their land yachts so they aren't backing over their kids as often.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

WWYBYB

I never was banned. I just started posting here a couple of months ago. Do you think I should be banned? If so, please explain why?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

WWYBYB

I never was banned. I just started posting here a couple of months ago. Do you think I should be banned? If so, please explain why?

What the heck does WWYBYB mean and I don't see how anything you said is anything but your right to your opinion. The thread is about Gore and my posts were about how silly the thread is in light of larger realities. I acknowledged that Gore has to be imperfect because he's a fallible human being. But this thread is much adieu about nothing. It is about a bunch of brainwashed sheep who have been trained to hate Gore since he was obviously the better choice for President and may become so again. We are talking here about folk whose political instincts are so keen they gave us George Bush. Why would any sane person give a rat's ass what they think. Their thinking is the disease that is in the process of killing our nation. The dangerous mental imbalance that causes them to see as they do is a threat to the human race. Such big fat egotistical fools are like blood sucking fleas. They run down anything that smells of health and joy and love. They can't admit to themselves they are a cancer.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Craig234
And he pays for offsets so his energy use is carbon neutral. Do you, since you inaccurately attack him for not being 'green'?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/17/133652/848

From that link:

Gore does in fact take advantage of the green power options his utility offers, and was in the process of adding photovoltaic solar cells to his house when the article came out. He pays for his own personal carbon offsets, in addition to the institutional offsets purchased by Paramount (movie distributor) and Rodale (book publisher), which make both the book and the movie completely carbon neutral.

So I don't see how he's a hypocrite.

/thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think he meant WWYBYWB (Who Were You Before You Were Banned?).

Moonbeam - And you also have your right to your opinion...no matter how many times you manage to twist non-Bush topics into a Bush bashing fest. You definitely need a thick skin around here...but I actually enjoyed the "blood sucking fleas" and the "They run down anything that smells of health and joy and love" comments. They give clear insight as to exactly where you are coming from and just how depraved the human mind can become when everything is viewed from a highly partisan perspective. I believe that it's intellectually dishonest to polarize everything as 100% white or 100% black and deny the reality that infinite shades of grey exist. I glad to see that you and I agree that Gore is not infallible...maybe there's hope for you yet!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
Al Gore
Topic Summary: Is a hypocrit

Take anything from Drudge with a boatload of salt. Then, ignore it.

Instead of recognizing the success of Gore's impact by bringing the threat of global warming to high public profile, and his personal leadership in bringing the advantages of working toward a carbon neutral society, uninformed pissant do nothing right wing loudmouths find it more entertaining to flame anyone who is actually doing something constructive about the problem.

I can't wait to see how they go after him if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

So what is the point of your post? Are you disputing the amount of energy that Al Gore consumes? Are you defending an obvious hypocrite? You guys love to go after the religious right when one of them is caught doing something that goes against their Christian values, how is this any different?

So, you're saying that it's not possible that Schweitzer is lying about these claims? Craig234 posted an article that pretty much covers these bogus accusations, and buries the argument before it *should* even begin. I'll re-link:

just because your right wing nutjob says it, doesn't make it so

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
NES is a public entity. Its records are public records and thus are open.

NES as a public corporation has its own financials open to public scrutiny. However, it's customers information should not be treated as such. Would you be ok with the phone company sharing your phone call records with any reporter who walked in off the street and asked for it? I didn't think so. See the differentiation? Corporate data != customer data.

 

[fskimospy]

After intitially reading this thread I wasn't gonna post, this is merely a repeat of a previous post here.

However, I came back because the above thoughts expressed by various members struck me as quite odd. People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money? It's all OK cuz he can afford to pay for offsets?

So I guess the USA, being the richest nation, is likewise allowed to have higher consumption/emissions than poorer countries?

Better get a memo on this out to the rest of the world, they seem confused and assert exactly the opposite.

Oh, and you might add in your memo since tons of USA scientists are researching global warming and raising awareness, the benefit more than outweighs the cost (of our emissions).

Fern

Do you even know what a carbon offset is? By paying for more trees to be planted, and things of that nature he pays to have what carbon is emitted by the energy he consumes completely eliminated. That means in an average year, zero carbon is contributed to the atmosphere thanks to Al Gore. (well, i bet they miss some here and there... but you get the idea). So, while he is consuming more energy then your average joe, his impact to the environment is SMALLER. Who cares how he's doing it? Is this a shock to you that people with lots of money consume more things then people with no money? He's using his own money to make our whole world a better place and you have a problem with this? It's not hypocricy, its the height of practicing what you preach.

So, by your logic.. yes. IF the US, as the biggest and richest country in the world, were to somehow create enough areas to completely consume all the carbon that we emit, it is pretty safe to assume that the rest of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.

I feel like this thread is drowning in a sea of ignorance about the basic subject matter it is based on.

 

[UberNeuman]

So if the argument is that Gore is a hypocrite for pushing for energy conservation and not following through with it, does this mean that supporters of the war in Iraq that aren't joining up to serve are hypocrites as well?

 

[OrByte]

from USA Today

Gores' green commitment

The op-ed attacking former vice president Al Gore's environmental record was extremely misleading.

Former vice president Gore has worked to implement the recommendations from his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and that includes his personal commitment to live a zero-carbon lifestyle.

He reduces the global-warming pollution for which he is responsible and then, each year, finances additional reductions elsewhere until his net impact on the global climate is reduced to zero.

He has long since switched to a hybrid car and was already in the process of adding solar photovoltaic units to his home before the commentary was published.

In addition, the Gores have donated 100% of all the profits from his movie and book to the fight against global-warming pollution.

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn't asking of them what he isn't willing to do himself.

Rather than vilifying a person who is trying to make a difference, wouldn't it be more fruitful for Schweizer to join the effort to solve the climate crisis?

Kalee Kreider, communications director

Office of Al Gore and Tipper Gore

Nashville

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
They cant help it, it has been beat into their heads so much the past 6 years that anytime any criticism comes up on the left, pull the bush card.

The powers that be have trained them well.

They are what most people call Sheeple.

Excuse me, if you are going to use the phrase "sheeple" that I started using on here please use in the correct context.

I started using sheeple in place of neocons since I was told to no longer call the folks on the religious radical right that term anymore. I was also told to not use RRR as well so it has been sheeple ever since.

Since the Republican Religious Radical Right Neocons lost the election the resident ones in here have been attempting to hijack my term for them to call the Democrat supporters sheeple now.

Can't you come up with your own terminology?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

After intitially reading this thread I wasn't gonna post, this is merely a repeat of a previous post here.

However, I came back because the above thoughts expressed by various members struck me as quite odd. People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money? It's all OK cuz he can afford to pay for offsets?

So I guess the USA, being the richest nation, is likewise allowed to have higher consumption/emissions than poorer countries?

Better get a memo on this out to the rest of the world, they seem confused and assert exactly the opposite.

Oh, and you might add in your memo since tons of USA scientists are researching global warming and raising awareness, the benefit more than outweighs the cost (of our emissions).

Fern

Do you even know what a carbon offset is? By paying for more trees to be planted, and things of that nature he pays to have what carbon is emitted by the energy he consumes completely eliminated. That means in an average year, zero carbon is contributed to the atmosphere thanks to Al Gore. (well, i bet they miss some here and there... but you get the idea). So, while he is consuming more energy then your average joe, his impact to the environment is SMALLER. Who cares how he's doing it? Is this a shock to you that people with lots of money consume more things then people with no money? He's using his own money to make our whole world a better place and you have a problem with this? It's not hypocricy, its the height of practicing what you preach.

So, by your logic.. yes. IF the US, as the biggest and richest country in the world, were to somehow create enough areas to completely consume all the carbon that we emit, it is pretty safe to assume that the rest of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.

I feel like this thread is drowning in a sea of ignorance about the basic subject matter it is based on.

My post wasn't about carbon offset, although you seem to act like it was. No where in my post do I address the value or usefulness of ofsets

My post was a response to the quotes of others. You removed those quotes, and therefore the context of my remarks, apparently in an attempt to alter the meaning.

There are posts above directly addressing the carbon offsets. Youy may wish to "debate" with those.

Fern

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

After intitially reading this thread I wasn't gonna post, this is merely a repeat of a previous post here.

However, I came back because the above thoughts expressed by various members struck me as quite odd. People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money? It's all OK cuz he can afford to pay for offsets?

So I guess the USA, being the richest nation, is likewise allowed to have higher consumption/emissions than poorer countries?

Better get a memo on this out to the rest of the world, they seem confused and assert exactly the opposite.

Oh, and you might add in your memo since tons of USA scientists are researching global warming and raising awareness, the benefit more than outweighs the cost (of our emissions).

Fern

Do you even know what a carbon offset is? By paying for more trees to be planted, and things of that nature he pays to have what carbon is emitted by the energy he consumes completely eliminated. That means in an average year, zero carbon is contributed to the atmosphere thanks to Al Gore. (well, i bet they miss some here and there... but you get the idea). So, while he is consuming more energy then your average joe, his impact to the environment is SMALLER. Who cares how he's doing it? Is this a shock to you that people with lots of money consume more things then people with no money? He's using his own money to make our whole world a better place and you have a problem with this? It's not hypocricy, its the height of practicing what you preach.

So, by your logic.. yes. IF the US, as the biggest and richest country in the world, were to somehow create enough areas to completely consume all the carbon that we emit, it is pretty safe to assume that the rest of the world wouldn't have a problem with it.

I feel like this thread is drowning in a sea of ignorance about the basic subject matter it is based on.

My post wasn't about carbon offset, although you seem to act like it was. No where in my post do I address the value or usefulness of ofsets

My post was a response to the quotes of others. You removed those quotes, and therefore the context of my remarks, apparently in an attempt to alter the meaning.

There are posts above directly addressing the carbon offsets. Youy may wish to "debate" with those.

Fern

Fern

I guess you missed my point. Consumption in terms of this debate is directly related to carbon offsets. 100% related. And so as long as he maintains a carbon neutral lifestyle he can consume as much as he wants. Rich or poor is irrelevant, and his net consumption is irrelevant. So what's your problem with his consumption because he's rich again?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So what's your problem with his consumption because he's rich again?

This is hysterical watching the resident rich republicans blast the rich democrat.

This is rich :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
.........Rich or poor is irrelevant......

Yeah, I think so too.

But I got the impression others don't share that sentiment. Quoting myself:

People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money?

I don't think my post even addressed the issue of hypocracy, or claim he was. I was just addressing members comments taht struck me as odd.

Fern

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should close the White House and get Bush an apartment, one with bars, since he likes the sauce. A man of Christ living in a mansion, geez what a hypocrite.

Moonbeam...please surprise me sometime by making an intelligent comment that's relevant to the thread topic. What is it? You got your panties in a bunch because someone says something critical of a Liberal and you don't know what to do except to bash Bush the 28,215th time? You're obviously passionate about your agenda...but, in your passion, you have sacrificed your ability think objectively and rationally express those thoughts. Instead...all I get from your posts is hate. What a price to pay.

I suspect that what I just said went in one ear and out the other....so, tell me again, for the 28,216th time, what you think of Bush?

I think we burned more fuel in the opening days of Bush's folly than Gore will burn in many lifetimes. I think the nut cases in this thread wasting hot air on Gore voted for Bush. Talk about hypocrites. They waste the wealth of our nation pointing their fingers at Gore. If you supported Bush you should be living, shame faced, under a rock.

By the way, if reason were of any functionality in conveying the truth, the fools of this world would long ago have gotten the message. You teach with reason. I'll work with a mirror.

Moonbeam, thanks for yet another keen and thoughtful insight into Bush and his folly...never mind me...I mistakenly thought this thread was about Gore. :roll:

They cant help it, it has been beat into their heads so much the past 6 years that anytime any criticism comes up on the left, pull the bush card.

The powers that be have trained them well. They are what most people call Sheeple.

wow, this guy has really shown us the light..we just need to quit being brainwashed..
the only reason that bush comes up in this thread is because most of the people who complain about gore are bush supporters. Not to mention that the whole anti-gore thing IS a republican/sheeple issue. He is a lightning rod for conservative talking heads. If people want to criticize gore they can do it in his political record because currently none of the politicians have that great of an environmental record. I don't personally like gore ,but I like him a whole lot more than bush. no one beat this opinion into my head..i've disagreed with bush from day one and my family never had a political affiliation to democrats or republicans, they simply didnt pay attention to politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
.........Rich or poor is irrelevant......

Yeah, I think so too.

But I got the impression others don't share that sentiment. Quoting myself:

People seem to be saying that because he's rich it's OK for him to consume more than others, giant mansions and private jets are certainly not necessary but OK cause he's rich?

So, rich people are allowed more emissions than poorer ones just because of their money?

I don't think my post even addressed the issue of hypocracy, or claim he was. I was just addressing members comments taht struck me as odd.

Fern

My bad then, I thought you were saying that it wasn't ok.