Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm in which he is a chairman

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.

:thumbsup:

Plus Gore doesn't have anyone dying because of this venture..... Can Dick say the same?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.

Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?

Are you joking?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.

Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?

Are you joking?

From Wiki:

[edit] Ties with Dick Cheney
In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million[7]. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[5] Cheney also retains unexercised stock options at Halliburton, which have been valued at nearly $8 million.[5]

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[5] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[5]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wheres the public money again?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Please tell me you're not that dense.... Who is paying Halliburton for the work in Iraq?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Please tell me you're not that dense.... Who is paying Halliburton for the work in Iraq?

Please tell me youre not that naive. Of course tax money; however, under the LOGCAP troop support contract valued at about 9 bill, only 3 bill has been paid out. It s a continuing contract. Or do you think when the headlines read HALIBURTON WINS 10 BILLION CONTRACT! they actually get a check for 10 bill?

BTW according to Haliburtions SEC statement for 2005, gross profits were 20 billion. So Iraq contracts were 10% of their gross profits.

Big deal? Not really.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Please tell me you're not that dense.... Who is paying Halliburton for the work in Iraq?

Please tell me youre not that naive. Of course tax money; however, under the LOGCAP troop support contract valued at about 9 bill, only 3 bill has been paid out. It s a continuing contract. Or do you think when the headlines read HALIBURTON WINS 10 BILLION CONTRACT! they actually get a check for 10 bill?

BTW according to Haliburtions SEC statement for 2005, gross profits were 20 billion. So Iraq contracts were 10% of their gross profits.

Big deal? Not really.

Of course it's not a big deal...... to Apologists.

So what is the reason you defend Bush at every turn possible especially when you continue to say you didn't vote for the guy???
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Please tell me you're not that dense.... Who is paying Halliburton for the work in Iraq?

Please tell me youre not that naive. Of course tax money; however, under the LOGCAP troop support contract valued at about 9 bill, only 3 bill has been paid out. It s a continuing contract. Or do you think when the headlines read HALIBURTON WINS 10 BILLION CONTRACT! they actually get a check for 10 bill?

BTW according to Haliburtions SEC statement for 2005, gross profits were 20 billion. So Iraq contracts were 10% of their gross profits.

Big deal? Not really.
So far then, $10 for every man woman and child in America. I'd be thrilled with half a penny from that many pockets.

At this point, you've tried to equate Al Gore spending his own money with Cheney spending YOUR money. More importantly, it actually does cost Al Gore money to buy his carbon credits, even from himself, and Cheney is still making at least some money on these contracts through stock options.

As I said before, "Are you joking"?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.
Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?
I responded directly to your comment, now bolded above. To whatever extent Gore earns a profit from paying his own company for carbon offsets, he is doing so with his own, personal money. Cheney, on the other hand, is paying Halliburton with taxpayers' money. That's all the difference in the world, and why most people would "have a problem ... with Cheney profiting from Halliburton's contracts." (as you stated).
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Please tell me you're not that dense.... Who is paying Halliburton for the work in Iraq?

Please tell me youre not that naive. Of course tax money; however, under the LOGCAP troop support contract valued at about 9 bill, only 3 bill has been paid out. It s a continuing contract. Or do you think when the headlines read HALIBURTON WINS 10 BILLION CONTRACT! they actually get a check for 10 bill?

BTW according to Haliburtions SEC statement for 2005, gross profits were 20 billion. So Iraq contracts were 10% of their gross profits.

Big deal? Not really.

Of course it's not a big deal...... to Apologists.

So what is the reason you defend Bush at every turn possible especially when you continue to say you didn't vote for the guy???

When did I defend Bush? I was defending Cheney's severance package from Haliburton. Whether its federal money or private money, I'm all for public companies deriving income. After all, its SHAREHOLDERS who profit from it :)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.
Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?
I responded directly to your comment, now bolded above. To whatever extent Gore earns a profit from paying his own company for carbon offsets, he is doing so with his own, personal money. Cheney, on the other hand, is paying Halliburton with taxpayers' money. That's all the difference in the world, and why most people would "have a problem ... with Cheney profiting from Halliburton's contracts." (as you stated).

eh...Cheney's income from Haliburton is derived from a severance package...that in NO WAY is related to Iraqi contracts....

dammit this is derailing the thread

But Im right.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Please tell me you're not that dense.... Who is paying Halliburton for the work in Iraq?

Please tell me youre not that naive. Of course tax money; however, under the LOGCAP troop support contract valued at about 9 bill, only 3 bill has been paid out. It s a continuing contract. Or do you think when the headlines read HALIBURTON WINS 10 BILLION CONTRACT! they actually get a check for 10 bill?

BTW according to Haliburtions SEC statement for 2005, gross profits were 20 billion. So Iraq contracts were 10% of their gross profits.

Big deal? Not really.

Of course it's not a big deal...... to Apologists.

So what is the reason you defend Bush at every turn possible especially when you continue to say you didn't vote for the guy???

When did I defend Bush? I was defending Cheney's severance package from Haliburton. Whether its federal money or private money, I'm all for public companies deriving income. After all, its SHAREHOLDERS who profit from it :)

Well, it's nice of you to protect Dick's package.... And I'm sure that families that have lost lives here in the U.S. and Iraq will take great comfort in the fact that the SHAREHOLDERS made a profit.....

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.
Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?
I responded directly to your comment, now bolded above. To whatever extent Gore earns a profit from paying his own company for carbon offsets, he is doing so with his own, personal money. Cheney, on the other hand, is paying Halliburton with taxpayers' money. That's all the difference in the world, and why most people would "have a problem ... with Cheney profiting from Halliburton's contracts." (as you stated).

eh...Cheney's income from Haliburton is derived from a severance package...that in NO WAY is related to Iraqi contracts....

dammit this is derailing the thread

But Im right.

The issue is not that direct income. The issue is Cheney influencing taxpayer money into the pockets of his cronies at Halliburton against the taxpayer interest.

In a system of cronyism, as we have, such as the revolving door between defense contractors and Pentagon representatives, you don't need 'direct' payola.

It's a big reason our anti-corruption laws are too limited. Heck, even the incredibly corrupt Tom DeLay barely got caught. Duke Cunningham is the exception, with direct bribes.

But of course the topic here is that there is no comparison between Gore spending his money with his company, and any Cheney pushing taxpayer money to cronies.

It's like trying to smear Gore by saying "Al Capone! OJ Simpson! Charles Manson! Al Gore! Adolf Hitler! Osama bin Laden!"

Just attack him and put his name with bad things and let the poor readers see him as somehow like the others in the list. It works well.

It's easy to make the smear, and takes time to explain why the smear is a lie.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.
Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?
I responded directly to your comment, now bolded above. To whatever extent Gore earns a profit from paying his own company for carbon offsets, he is doing so with his own, personal money. Cheney, on the other hand, is paying Halliburton with taxpayers' money. That's all the difference in the world, and why most people would "have a problem ... with Cheney profiting from Halliburton's contracts." (as you stated).

eh...Cheney's income from Haliburton is derived from a severance package...that in NO WAY is related to Iraqi contracts....

dammit this is derailing the thread

But Im right.

The issue is not that direct income. The issue is Cheney influencing taxpayer money into the pockets of his cronies at Halliburton against the taxpayer interest.
In a system of cronyism, as we have, such as the revolving door between defense contractors and Pentagon representatives, you don't need 'direct' payola.

It's a big reason our anti-corruption laws are too limited. Heck, even the incredibly corrupt Tom DeLay barely got caught. Duke Cunningham is the exception, with direct bribes.

But of course the topic here is that there is no comparison between Gore spending his money with his company, and any Cheney pushing taxpayer money to cronies.

It's like trying to smear Gore by saying "Al Capone! OJ Simpson! Charles Manson! Al Gore! Adolf Hitler! Osama bin Laden!"

Just attack him and put his name with bad things and let the poor readers see him as somehow like the others in the list. It works well.

It's easy to make the smear, and takes time to explain why the smear is a lie.

Speculation at best. Against taxpayer interest? Can you tell me what company has had success at this sort of thing to the extent Haliburton has?

Didnt think so.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?
Then I assume you dont have a problem whatsoever with Cheney profiting from Haliburton's contracts? Good to know.
(/Taps sarcasm meter. Nothing. Hmmm.)

Gore is spending his own money. Cheney is spending taxpayers' money. I would think even the most blind partisan could see the difference.
Wait what?

Haliburton is a publicly traded stock. When Haliburton gets new contracts, the stock goes up, therefore stockholders make money.

Where does public money come in?
I responded directly to your comment, now bolded above. To whatever extent Gore earns a profit from paying his own company for carbon offsets, he is doing so with his own, personal money. Cheney, on the other hand, is paying Halliburton with taxpayers' money. That's all the difference in the world, and why most people would "have a problem ... with Cheney profiting from Halliburton's contracts." (as you stated).

eh...Cheney's income from Haliburton is derived from a severance package...that in NO WAY is related to Iraqi contracts....

dammit this is derailing the thread

But Im right.

The issue is not that direct income. The issue is Cheney influencing taxpayer money into the pockets of his cronies at Halliburton against the taxpayer interest.
In a system of cronyism, as we have, such as the revolving door between defense contractors and Pentagon representatives, you don't need 'direct' payola.

It's a big reason our anti-corruption laws are too limited. Heck, even the incredibly corrupt Tom DeLay barely got caught. Duke Cunningham is the exception, with direct bribes.

But of course the topic here is that there is no comparison between Gore spending his money with his company, and any Cheney pushing taxpayer money to cronies.

It's like trying to smear Gore by saying "Al Capone! OJ Simpson! Charles Manson! Al Gore! Adolf Hitler! Osama bin Laden!"

Just attack him and put his name with bad things and let the poor readers see him as somehow like the others in the list. It works well.

It's easy to make the smear, and takes time to explain why the smear is a lie.

Speculation at best. Against taxpayer interest? Can you tell me what company has had success at this sort of thing to the extent Haliburton has?

Didnt think so.

Didn't Halliburton get convicted of defrauding the government for milliopns of dollars? They should never get another dime of tax money.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126

The issue is not that direct income. The issue is Cheney influencing taxpayer money into the pockets of his cronies at Halliburton against the taxpayer interest.
In a system of cronyism, as we have, such as the revolving door between defense contractors and Pentagon representatives, you don't need 'direct' payola.

It's a big reason our anti-corruption laws are too limited. Heck, even the incredibly corrupt Tom DeLay barely got caught. Duke Cunningham is the exception, with direct bribes.

But of course the topic here is that there is no comparison between Gore spending his money with his company, and any Cheney pushing taxpayer money to cronies.

It's like trying to smear Gore by saying "Al Capone! OJ Simpson! Charles Manson! Al Gore! Adolf Hitler! Osama bin Laden!"

Just attack him and put his name with bad things and let the poor readers see him as somehow like the others in the list. It works well.

It's easy to make the smear, and takes time to explain why the smear is a lie.[/quote]

Speculation at best. Against taxpayer interest? Can you tell me what company has had success at this sort of thing to the extent Haliburton has?

Didnt think so.[/quote]

Didn't Halliburton get convicted of defrauding the government for milliopns of dollars? They should never get another dime of tax money.[/quote]

No. A manager of a subsiderary was convicted. Halliburton has always been accused though.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
[Can you tell me what company has had success at this sort of thing to the extent Haliburton has?

Didnt think so.
Experience in which "sort of thing?" Fraud? Waste? Shoddy construction? Deceit? Cronyism?

You're right. Halliburton's one of the best, and possibly THE best there is at those. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
..so who didn't know the global warming grift is nothing more then a emissions credit racket??
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
I don't disagree with what people are saying about Gore buying from his own company, but it is somewhat questionable to be trying to make money off of your "cause." He is going around preaching a doctrine, then he has a company set up to milk people of their money once they believe in what he is preaching. I don't think it is the worst thing in the world, but it does hurt his credibility some.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1

The issue is not that direct income. The issue is Cheney influencing taxpayer money into the pockets of his cronies at Halliburton against the taxpayer interest.
In a system of cronyism, as we have, such as the revolving door between defense contractors and Pentagon representatives, you don't need 'direct' payola.

It's a big reason our anti-corruption laws are too limited. Heck, even the incredibly corrupt Tom DeLay barely got caught. Duke Cunningham is the exception, with direct bribes.

But of course the topic here is that there is no comparison between Gore spending his money with his company, and any Cheney pushing taxpayer money to cronies.

It's like trying to smear Gore by saying "Al Capone! OJ Simpson! Charles Manson! Al Gore! Adolf Hitler! Osama bin Laden!"

Just attack him and put his name with bad things and let the poor readers see him as somehow like the others in the list. It works well.

It's easy to make the smear, and takes time to explain why the smear is a lie.

Speculation at best. Against taxpayer interest? Can you tell me what company has had success at this sort of thing to the extent Haliburton has?

Didnt think so.[/quote]

Didn't Halliburton get convicted of defrauding the government for milliopns of dollars? They should never get another dime of tax money.[/quote]

No. A manager of a subsiderary was convicted. Halliburton has always been accused though.[/quote]

Upcoming hearings will shed a little more light on exactly how much money Halliburton has defrauded from the US taxpayers.

Oversight is a bitch.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't disagree with what people are saying about Gore buying from his own company, but it is somewhat questionable to be trying to make money off of your "cause." He is going around preaching a doctrine, then he has a company set up to milk people of their money once they believe in what he is preaching. I don't think it is the worst thing in the world, but it does hurt his credibility some.

Only if you assume his credibility is poor to start with. Replace Gore with yourself and carbon offsets with any product or service that you personally believe in.

For example shoes. I think that shoes are really great. They can look great on women, improve our ability to walk long distances, and protect our feet from things that would otherwise poke them. I feel so passionately about shoes that I invested in a company that makes and sells shoes. I invested in this company because I think that they make the best shoes and I buy all of my shoes from them. I tell all of my friends about the companies shoes: not to make a buck, but because I really think that they are a great product.

Gore has been talking about GW for a very long time now. Whatever you or others believe, he really believes in what he says. Why wouldn't he invest in a company that does something about it?

 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?

And there's nothing scandoalous with what Cheney did, but heh it never stopped the libs from running with it.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: spittledip
I don't disagree with what people are saying about Gore buying from his own company, but it is somewhat questionable to be trying to make money off of your "cause." He is going around preaching a doctrine, then he has a company set up to milk people of their money once they believe in what he is preaching. I don't think it is the worst thing in the world, but it does hurt his credibility some.

Only if you assume his credibility is poor to start with. Replace Gore with yourself and carbon offsets with any product or service that you personally believe in.

For example shoes. I think that shoes are really great. They can look great on women, improve our ability to walk long distances, and protect our feet from things that would otherwise poke them. I feel so passionately about shoes that I invested in a company that makes and sells shoes. I invested in this company because I think that they make the best shoes and I buy all of my shoes from them. I tell all of my friends about the companies shoes: not to make a buck, but because I really think that they are a great product.

Gore has been talking about GW for a very long time now. Whatever you or others believe, he really believes in what he says. Why wouldn't he invest in a company that does something about it?

Shoes are pretty tangible. GW isn't at all. No one is skeptical about the value of shoes. Alot of people are skeptical about GW. It's like televangalism. They preach about some questionable stuff, and then get you to send them money regarding the questionable stuff they preached about.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?

And there's nothing scandoalous with what Cheney did, but heh it never stopped the libs from running with it.

What did Cheney do?

 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,387
2,553
136
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?

And there's nothing scandoalous with what Cheney did, but heh it never stopped the libs from running with it.

So 2 closed door SEC investigations is nothing?

 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Craig234
There's nothing scandalous about Gore paying for offsets to the company he runs for that.

People are such simpletons sometimes - they can't distinguish a private citizen voluntarily buying something without any conflict of interest, and government officials with ulterior motives in where they spend taxpayer money, with potential scandal.

It's like calling it a scandal if Richard Branson gave away CD's that he bought from his own company, Virgin Records, and pays to fly on his own airline.

*What* is wrong with Gore spending the money at his company Michaels? And *he* makes *you* sick?

And there's nothing scandoalous with what Cheney did, but heh it never stopped the libs from running with it.


well said. pot/kettle, indeed.