RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint."

RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 7:54:43 AM)
Wow Puella, you should get a job on Gore's staff in the "Making Excuses for Al" dept. Doesn't everyone use a private jet? Most people couldn't afford $5,000 per year for electricity never mind $30,000. Hell, a lot of people don't make that much per year! Must be nice to have an indoor swimming pool, eh? I'll be taking a bagfull of plastic jugs and a bunch of cardboard to the recycling center this afternoon.

puella -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 8:15:32 AM)
So, your real problem is not that there actually is any basis to the "wasting energy" slander, but rather that Al Gore is rich? There are lots of rich people... we live in a capitalistic society. If you are going to start drawing up hit lists due to people being wealthy, you are going to have to take out a lot of much fatter cats before you ever get close to Al Gore. I have no problem poking holes in any retarded logic, popeye, whether it 'defends' Al Gore or not. The fact of the matter is, that a right wing think tank, funded by big oil money, created this smear against Al Gore, and didn't even try to present the entire picture. Now, having shown you where their arguments are not only false but intentionally misleading, you resort to petulance and whine because Al Gore is both wealthy and is attempting to make positive change... Er....okay, then!

domiguy -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 8:15:34 AM)
quote: Sanity Because she isn't preaching to the masses about the dangers of gluttony like the Rev. Al Gore is. And "The Center" is unbiased. Why is it you feel you have to attack the messenger when you find out that your preacher man (Al Gore) is a huge hypocrite. Just face facts, instead - he doesn't believe what he preaches. Read the article "The press release from Johnson's group, an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was given splashy attention on the highly-trafficked Drudge Report " Then google "Drew Johnson"...Then read the articles and come back and tell me "The Center" is unbiased. It is one thing to like to argue...It is another to not realize that where I get me news will directly affect the content and the information that I receive.... quote: Sternhand4 Iraq did infact have ties to "terrorists" and al qaeda was one of those groups. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040722.htm Iraq and Saddam as its leader had the money to fund these groups. Welcome to the Project for the New American Century A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile governments, advancing democratic and economic freedom, ... Right off of their website...Are you so lazy that you can't find a credible source for news? Why not try to find a number of sites that will verify your story? So this is the source that you want to use in an argument ...Where is the common sense....Why rely on a source that clearly has an agenda? it is difficult but you need to try and find better sources for the "truth!" Lastly...People with money send their kids to private school. Who cares...Why would I want to send my kids to a public school...Most of them are awful. I guess what chaps my ass is that "most" of the "righties" out here probably were not to happy with Pres. Clinton. They disliked that he stared into the camera and "lied" to America...Which is true! And I know most conservatives then hated the idea of those who came to this "liars" defense. Now we have come full circle...and most the people out here who defend the war or President Bush have become exactly the same person,that they despised, who defended Clinton 8 years ago.....I'm not being snide...But can't you see the reality of that statement...And if you think about it, doesn't it suck that we have such shitty leaders that it routinely causes the people who originally supported them have to make sweeping generalizations or worse contadict their own personal values in order to "keep that support in place." I wish you all well...

Sanity -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 8:20:05 AM)
No, what you did was repeat some pathetic lies. It was no right wing think tank, it's an unbiased think tank, right in the middle. And Al Gore gets his power the same way everyone else does. Face it, he's a phony and a fraud and all of the lies in the world won't change those basic truths about him. quote: ORIGINAL: puella So, your real problem is not that there actually is any basis to the "wasting energy" slander, but rather that Al Gore is rich? There are lots of rich people... we live in a capitalistic society. If you are going to start drawing up hit lists due to people being wealthy, you are going to have to take out a lot of much fatter cats before you ever get close to Al Gore. I have no problem poking holes in any retarded logic, popeye, whether it 'defends' Al Gore or not. The fact of the matter is, that a right wing think tank, funded by big oil money, created this smear against Al Gore, and didn't even try to present the entire picture. Now, having shown you where their arguments are not only false but intentionally misleading, you resort to petulance and whine because Al Gore is both wealthy and is attempting to make positive change... Er....okay, then!

puella -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 8:23:57 AM)
Er... any think tank which unabashedly opposes minum wage increase and which,funded largely by big oil money, is used to attack a "lefty" who opposes their agendas, is at the very least right leaning, and in my opinion, right wing... you are of course entitled to your own inteprpretation. I am not at all sure why you think Al Gore is a fraud, but I will await your explanation.

farglebargle -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 9:02:01 AM)
"Al Gore's tireless efforts to promote global warming alarmism, backed by millions of dollars, have undoubtedly changed public opinion. However, this does not mean that truth and virtue are triumphing over falsehood and sin." Yeah, THAT'S concerned with SCIENCE. I love the way "TRUTH AND VIRTUE" are contrasted with "FALSEHOOD AND SIN". So, when you have no actual SCIENCE you fall back to religious arguments?

popeye1250 -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 9:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella So, your real problem is not that there actually is any basis to the "wasting energy" slander, but rather that Al Gore is rich? There are lots of rich people... we live in a capitalistic society. If you are going to start drawing up hit lists due to people being wealthy, you are going to have to take out a lot of much fatter cats before you ever get close to Al Gore. I have no problem poking holes in any retarded logic, popeye, whether it 'defends' Al Gore or not. The fact of the matter is, that a right wing think tank, funded by big oil money, created this smear against Al Gore, and didn't even try to present the entire picture. Now, having shown you where their arguments are not only false but intentionally misleading, you resort to petulance and whine because Al Gore is both wealthy and is attempting to make positive change... Er....okay, then! Puella, I have no "problem" with rich people per se. I'm "comfortable" myself financially. If in fact Al Gore uses 20 times the energy of the average American, and it appears by the figures that he does, then that's really not a "smear" by anyone, left or right wing is it? Math is not "an opinion." Al Gore's monthly electric bills are not "intentionally misleading." Again, the math thing. Figures are not "slander." And they don't lie. If he's telling (me) to use less energy with an electric bill of $50 per month, while he has a monthly bill of $2,800 I have a problem with that. I fly in "Coach" when I travel not in a private jet. And when I go somewhere in my car I don't have an entourage of 6-8 vehicles around me that get 12 mpg. Does it really make any difference whether a "right-wing" group, a "left-wing" group, or an "independant" group discovered Al Gore's massive use of power? What if it was a "libertarian" group? The point is that it's hypocritical of him to tell someone to do something and then have him turn around and do just the opposite. "Do what I say not what I do." You're straying into "don't kill the messenger" territory.

popeye1250 -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 9:37:41 AM)
Domiguy, yes, a lot of people send their kids to private schools. But when a politician is campaigning and uses the issue of "Education" and promises to help public schools and teachers and send his children to public schools but after being elected sends them to private schools I think that's what they call "lying." That tells me that they never intended to send their kids to public schools! If they don't intend to send their kids to public schools then don't say they're going to. I may be considered "old fashioned" but when someone says they're going to do something I expect them to follow through with it.

domiguy -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 9:49:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, what you did was repeat some pathetic lies. It was no right wing think tank, it's an unbiased think tank, right in the middle. And Al Gore gets his power the same way everyone else does. Face it, he's a phony and a fraud and all of the lies in the world won't change those basic truths about him. quote: ORIGINAL: puella So, your real problem is not that there actually is any basis to the "wasting energy" slander, but rather that Al Gore is rich? There are lots of rich people... we live in a capitalistic society. If you are going to start drawing up hit lists due to people being wealthy, you are going to have to take out a lot of much fatter cats before you ever get close to Al Gore. I have no problem poking holes in any retarded logic, popeye, whether it 'defends' Al Gore or not. The fact of the matter is, that a right wing think tank, funded by big oil money, created this smear against Al Gore, and didn't even try to present the entire picture. Now, having shown you where their arguments are not only false but intentionally misleading, you resort to petulance and whine because Al Gore is both wealthy and is attempting to make positive change... Er....okay, then! The difference between you and I is that I googled the site I read excerpts from his book...It is clearly a platfrom from the "right." you,I assume, did none of those things...I didn't rely on the USA today report...Again it requires the ability to place logic to does this person have an agenda or not...Drew Johnson clearly has an interest that lies on one side of the debate and that is the right side! it is clear and undeniable...If you can't "see it" then you have not the capability to understand nor process what you read...And therefore should not be taken seriously when engaging in a debate...And from this point forward I will dismiss all of your posts.

puella -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 9:49:50 AM)
You are missing the whole point, popeye. Al Gore is using renewable energy... green energy. He is not soaking up the last of your oil. He made a personal investment to use renewable energy, so he can use as much as he wants and he is not harming the environment! He is not saying you have to sit in darkness in your home. I am assuming you have not seen the documentary he put out or you would realize that. What he is suggesting is that we need to stop getting our energy from sources which deplete our natural resources, and which in their utilization create harmful by products which further destroy our environment. He is not trying to take away your right to drive a pick up or even a Hummer... He is proposing that we need to impose better fuel standards on them at the very least and start funding the technologies (which are already available) which can allow us to not utilized fossil fuels at all. I do not understand why that makes him evil, immoral, or somehow trying to grab your slice of American freedom from you? As for the group, the real problem is that they massaged a few of the facts to suit their agenda, and blatantly did not report the whole of the facts, to ensure that the report would lead people to believe something that is just not true. Why, when told the whole story, do you refuse to embrace the fact that.. okay, he is not creating a huge 'carbon footprint' as was reported, and just call it a day. Why do you then turn to the fact that he has a swimming pool? Who cares. He is wealthy, that has nothing at all to do with what this man has been trying to do, which is ensure a better future for people besides himself and his family alone... let me tell you, not many of the wealthy elite look beyond the good that will come to themselves and their own immediate clique.

domiguy -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 9:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Domiguy, yes, a lot of people send their kids to private schools. But when a politician is campaigning and uses the issue of "Education" and promises to help public schools and teachers and send his children to public schools but after being elected sends them to private schools I think that's what they call "lying." That tells me that they never intended to send their kids to public schools! If they don't intend to send their kids to public schools then don't say they're going to. I may be considered "old fashioned" but when someone says they're going to do something I expect them to follow through with it. I am not aware if Gore or whom ever vowed to keep their kids in the public school system...If they did and then didn't keep their word well then that certainly diminishes any further worth you would place on that person's speak. one thing I think we all can agree on, doesn't it suck that you have to be placed in a position to defend these A-holes? No one speaks the truth. Everything is hidden wthin half truths or worse...I'm sick of it! Both sides are guilty...Never before have the two sides been further apart...and if this thread's dialogue has any relevance to what is going on "out there," it appears that there is little chance for any type of reconcilliation in the forseeable future.

farglebargle -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 10:17:37 AM)
Geez, OUR utility bills are upwards of 750.00 a month. What's the big deal?

Sanity -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 10:26:15 AM)
Are you looking forward to needless "carbon taxes" pushing your bill to twice that or more? The Reverand Gore will hurt the poor more than anyone. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Geez, OUR utility bills are upwards of 750.00 a month. What's the big deal?

farglebargle -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 10:31:10 AM)
I'm more pissed off about the sell-off of AMERICA's Generation and Grid to FOREIGN COMPANIES. The move to "National Grid" was the worst thing ever to happen to America's Security. We can't even keep our own lights on anymore without the Hated British.

domiguy -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 2:25:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, what you did was repeat some pathetic lies. It was no right wing think tank, it's an unbiased think tank, right in the middle. And Al Gore gets his power the same way everyone else does. Face it, he's a phony and a fraud and all of the lies in the world won't change those basic truths about him. [ The difference between you and I is that I googled the site I read excerpts from his book...It is clearly a platfrom from the "right." you,I assume, did none of those things...I didn't rely on the USA today report...Again it requires the ability to place logic to does this person have an agenda or not...Drew Johnson clearly has an interest that lies on one side of the debate and that is the right side! it is clear and undeniable...If you can't "see it" then you have not the capability to understand nor process what you read...And therefore should not be taken seriously when engaging in a debate...And from this point forward I will dismiss all of your posts.

caitlyn -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 2:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Geez, OUR utility bills are upwards of 750.00 a month. What's the big deal? I'm with fargle on this one ... what's the big deal. My foster parents are upper middle class ... they own (or the mortgage company owns), about a 5K square foot home with a pool, on 1.75 acre lot. In the summer, we have $1,800 electric bills.

Sternhand4 -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 5:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Geez, OUR utility bills are upwards of 750.00 a month. What's the big deal? I'm with fargle on this one ... what's the big deal. My foster parents are upper middle class ... they own (or the mortgage company owns), about a 5K square foot home with a pool, on 1.75 acre lot. In the summer, we have $1,800 electric bills. Its not a problem, until you run around and tell everyone else they need to use less energy.

MsPoetress -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 5:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella What they did not report was that he is paying more money for his energy than the average Joe because he is using renewable energy sources (that would be green, kids), which due to the lack of infrastructure, costs more at this point as an option for your energy needs. So in effect, he chose to pay more out of his pocket to ensure that he is not using an energy source which rapes the earth. Please provide proof that he is now using renewable energy sources, because I have not been able to find it stated anywhere. ~poe

farglebargle -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 5:29:56 PM)
We do need to use less energy. Did you ASK Al if he's dropped his usage. That might be a lowered usage. If that's the case, and he wants to pay for it, what kind of commie is going to tell him not to spend his money on the Free Market how he wants to? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/32695_vp26.shtml quote: Democrats say shifting responsibility for Cheney's electric bill from the vice president's operating budget to the Navy would insulate him from the realities faced by "regular people" who are coping with sharply higher electricity costs. The administration earmarked $186,000 for those costs for the next fiscal year. "My constituents can't send their bills for skyrocketing electric bills to the U.S. Navy," Inslee said from the floor, noting that cost of electricity has gone up as much as 60 percent for some people living in his district. $ 186,000 a year is cheney's bill.

farglebargle -> RE: Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint." (2/28/2007 5:34:21 PM)
quote: Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/BUSINESS/702280381/1003

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125