Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

‘GREEN’ GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET

By: Pam On: Sep/7/07 - 67 Comments

gore.jpg

FOXNEWS host Sean Hannity is set to unleash the damning video this Sunday night, network sources reveal.

via Drudge

Posts Related to this one:

Posted on: September 7, 2007 |

Posted in: Democrats, General Politics, Global Warming, Presidential Election '08

67 Responses to “‘GREEN’ GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET”

  1. PCD
    September 7, 2007 - 09:17 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Gore should be locked in the Unabombers Montana shack for 8 years to live like Gore preaches others live. Any bets on Gore surviving the first winter in Montana?

  2. Robert
    September 7, 2007 - 10:21 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Since when can we expect a Democrite to actually practice what they preach for others? Especially an arch-hypocrite like Gore, who not only was in charge of environmental issues for 8 years in the Klinton admin while we built more fossil-fuel burning power plants and further handicapped and dismantled our nuclear power capability.

    Well now Gore is the Messiah, the Savior of the Planet and Head of the Church of Global Warming, we certainly cannot expect him to be held to any of the standards mere mortals are! Gore is practically divine!

    Anyway, we’ve been told it is our fault, our fault for driving our cars to work to generate the wealth of this Nation, to pay taxes and support our families. We are evil for doing that!

  3. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 10:21 AM on September 7th, 2007

    LOL. Not a big deal at all, people.

    Have any of you heard of carbon credits?

    I’m willing to bet $10 that the Gore Team bought offsets.

    The wife and I bought some for our last road trip around California.

  4. Robert
    September 7, 2007 - 10:34 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Carbon offsets…

    :))=)):-j

    SFL, are you REALLY that naive to believe in that scam?

    :))=)):-j

  5. Peejz
    September 7, 2007 - 10:49 AM on September 7th, 2007

    3- So you bought carbon credit..okay, so where are these credits being redeemed?

  6. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 10:53 AM on September 7th, 2007

    The wife did the purchase, but I believe they are going towards planting trees and towards a machine that breaks down animal waste and converts it into energy that is given to farmers (i’m a little schetchy on the details of the device, but thats the gist of it)

    And that wasn’t much $$$. Imagine what kind of offsets a wealthy man like Gore could produce!

  7. Robert
    September 7, 2007 - 10:56 AM on September 7th, 2007

    “I’m willing to bet $10 that the Gore Team bought offsets.”

    Sure…he pulled some money out of his pocket and put it into the other pocket…

    =)) :))

    SFL, sometimes you are almost child-like in your simple naivete…

  8. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 11:00 AM on September 7th, 2007

    No, really.

    He probably bought carbon offsets.

    Like I did last week.

    It’s what we liberals do now when we take long trips.

    Give it another 10 years or so, and everyone else – including you – will be doing it too.

  9. Robert
    September 7, 2007 - 11:01 AM on September 7th, 2007

    =))

  10. PCD
    September 7, 2007 - 11:04 AM on September 7th, 2007

    3,6, SFL, you are the sucker born every minute that W. C. Fields spoke about.

    Gore “buys” carbon credits from a company he founded, and I’m sure he gets cash back out of it.

    You buffoons on carbon credits. YOU are real dolts to have come up with that. I am really laughing at you SFL. Do you buy the machine that turns seawater into gold from the guy in the alley? Do you have the “Tornado” on your car to save gas or the Fish carburator? How many ways are you and your wife LOONS????

  11. BonBon
    September 7, 2007 - 11:15 AM on September 7th, 2007

    SFL….that has to be the most naive thing I have ever seen you write. =))=))=))

  12. Robert
    September 7, 2007 - 11:18 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Hey SFL…I have the plans to build a 200 MPG carburetor…send me $200 and it’s yours…=))

  13. BonBon
    September 7, 2007 - 11:28 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Robert……:d

  14. PCD
    September 7, 2007 - 11:35 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Hey, SFL, The Field of Dreams Carbon Offset Company is opening its doors. YOU want to start buying your carbon offsets from me???

  15. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 11:50 AM on September 7th, 2007

    So, none of you have ever researched or bought carbon offsets.

    Soooo…none of you really know what you’re talking about. Again.

    Like I said, everybody who cares is starting to do these offsets.

    Watch, within ten years from now, many of you will be doing the same.

    It’s becoming the “right” thing to do. It’s certainly already the popular thing to do.

  16. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 11:59 AM on September 7th, 2007

    Ok, I asked my wife, and the device I mentioned is actually a complex composting bin of sorts that breaks down waste and converts it to fertizler.

    This helps the environment by reducing the trash that goes into landfill and re-directs it towards food production for farmers who apply to the program.

    Efficient and clean.

    Naive?

    Hardly.

    “Helpful” is more like the word you should be using. (!)
    ;)

  17. BonBon
    September 7, 2007 - 12:05 PM on September 7th, 2007

    SFL…..I researched carbon offsets and here’s what I learned. A tree gets planted in a third world country. Well, whoop dee do. My Honda gets 36 mpg and I use the metro when traveling downtown. I recycle what I can and never trash the highways.

    I also don’t believe the sky is falling and I refuse to put cash into the pockets of thugs like Gore.

    Yes, you are naive.

  18. PCD
    September 7, 2007 - 12:35 PM on September 7th, 2007

    Obviously WordPress is even trying to protect SFL.

    -> 15, SFL, you know-nothing boob, Algore’s scam was exposed on Right Voices long ago. Only boobs like you don’t know what is going on.

    Now, let me tell you that you and your wife are full of fertilizer! That scam you two invested into is just that. Animal waste has been used as fertilizer in the midwest for centuries! Where do you think the farm implement, a MANURE SPREADER is used and designed for???

    SFL, take your head out of your rear.

  19. Robert
    September 7, 2007 - 01:04 PM on September 7th, 2007

    My dog just took a dump outside. SFL would you care to sponsor it? Please send $10; you can then feel very good about what you have done!

    =))

  20. PCD
    September 7, 2007 - 01:39 PM on September 7th, 2007

    17, BonBon, if SFL doesn’t see how utterly stupid he is, now, there is no hope for him.

  21. Martin Luther
    September 7, 2007 - 01:42 PM on September 7th, 2007

    Just so I understand correctly SFL – when the Catholic Church tried this scam in the 16th century it was bad, but when St Gore does the same thing it’s “the right thing to do”?

    Who will be our Pope Pius?

  22. TedintheShed
    September 7, 2007 - 01:47 PM on September 7th, 2007

    So, none of you have ever researched or bought carbon offsets.

    Researched? Yes.

    Bought? Absolutely not.

    It’s a scam contreived to take advantage of over-conscientious folks who are ignorant of the situation. So these folks (apparently, you included) use “carbon offsets” in an effort to buy off perceived guilt. Mean while, the purveyors of said scam (read: Al Gore) laugh all the way to the bank.

  23. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 04:23 PM on September 7th, 2007

    “A tree gets planted in a third world country. Well, whoop dee do.”

    —————

    Tree’s “eat” carbon dioxide and “burp” oxygen. They help prevent soil erosion and they support wildlife…

    Planting a tree, no matter where, is a positive thing for people, the environment and wildlife.

  24. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 04:26 PM on September 7th, 2007

    “17, BonBon, if SFL doesn’t see how utterly stupid he is, now, there is no hope for him.”

    What, are you twelve years old?

    Try and talk like a big boy, PCD.

    8-|

  25. San Francisco Liberal
    September 7, 2007 - 04:34 PM on September 7th, 2007

    “It’s a scam contreived to take advantage of over-conscientious folks who are ignorant of the situation. So these folks (apparently, you included) use “carbon offsets”in an effort to buy off perceived guilt.”

    —————————

    I’m sure there are CO2 offset “scams” out there…thats what you get with capitalism. The good and the bad businesses.

    And that’s why the consumer needs to do his/her research and find out what works for them.

    The Main Point of CO2 OFFSETS: You can’t take back your impact on the environment, but you can help to create balance by doing/supporting groups or organizations that instead of taking from the environment, they give back.

    That could be anything from supporting local farmers and farmer markets (reducing transportation of goods reduces CO2 impact) to helping support tree planting groups, to buying COMPOSTING BINS for low-income families in rural areas, to countless other positive things.

    How can doing ANY of that be a bad thing in your mind?

    seriously. how?

  26. snowy egret
    September 7, 2007 - 04:46 PM on September 7th, 2007

    JOHN EDWARDS and AL GORE should be sent to live on the planet of ALPHA 177 where the night time tempeture is 120 degrees below zero

  27. PCD
    September 7, 2007 - 07:56 PM on September 7th, 2007

    23, 24,25, SFL, you cowardly, dishonest Liberal. YOU changed the focus of your purchased carbon scam. YOU talked about a magical box that converts animal waste inot fertilizer, not trees.

  28. Peejz
    September 7, 2007 - 08:48 PM on September 7th, 2007

    Greens don’t always live up to the name

    Here’s a little known secret. Environmental activists don’t care about global warming.

    Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing steadily and burning fossil fuels contributes to that trend. Altering that trend apparently is issue No. 1 for environmental activists. Their actions, however, don’t always match that goal.

    This is surprising, especially because Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels made leadership on climate change a central theme of his administration, including Seattle’s plan to meet the Kyoto carbon emission targets in 2012. The mayor promised to spend $37 million in the next two years and millions more to achieve that goal — about $21 to $42 for every ton of carbon emissions reduced.

    The high cost, however, leads one to question if reducing carbon emissions is the mayor’s primary goal. The city of Seattle could go to established organizations such as the Oregon Climate Trust, which charges only $10 per ton of CO2 reduced, or the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits cost $4 per ton.

    Those organizations offer programs that reduce carbon emissions elsewhere to offset Seattle’s emissions. Buying offsets would reduce carbon far more than funding expensive public works projects.

    That’s not the only example.

    Environmental activists advocate “green building standards” for state buildings. Paying a little more up front on energy systems in new buildings, they say, will reduce energy use later. Many of these “green” buildings such as Seattle City Hall, however, end up using more energy than those they replaced. A “green” Tacoma middle school used 25 percent more energy in its first year than a comparable non-”green” school built at the same time in the same district.

    The reaction of environmental activists to such data is illustrative. Instead of demanding improvements, they defend the failed standards. One proponent of such standards admitted that “the certification process doesn’t audit actual performance of the building or how much energy it really uses.”

    Further, market-oriented solutions that successfully reduce carbon emissions often are shunned. That was made obvious recently in Europe. Energy producers who reduce carbon emissions may sell credits to others who exceed the emission cap. In Britain, energy firms earned 1 billion pounds ($1.88 billion) from such trading. Instead of celebrating this confluence of environmental responsibility and profit motive, the World Wildlife Fund called for a “windfall tax” on that profit.

    Their discomfort with “profit” outweighed concern about global warming. Taxing the profit serves only to reduce the incentive of companies to reduce carbon emissions.

    In Washington state, green power advocates actively oppose our largest source of carbon-free, renewable energy — hydropower. Although they claim that no new sources of significant hydropower exist, they added additional barriers to potential development by classifying major hydro as non-renewable in Initiative 937.

    That same initiative, however, counts other renewable energy sources an extra 20 percent toward required targets if the project is built using union apprentices. Such efforts seem to indicate that they are willing to sacrifice carbon reduction for an economic ideology.

    Environmental activists frequently lament we are not taking global warming seriously. The gap between their words and actions undermines their credibility. Until they are willing to support effective market-oriented environmental solutions that preserve consumer choice, we have to wonder whether they really care about reducing carbon emissions, or are just using the issue to achieve other goals.

    Carbon credits are advertised as a way for polluters to offset the greenhouse gases they produce. Just write a check and someone else will reduce his emissions, so you can keep driving your Hummer or operating your coal-burning power plant without guilt.

    Of course, it’s not that easy. Even some environmentalists oppose carbon credits because, they say, offsets tend to give the impression that global warming is being solved.

    Worse, reports of fraud and abuse are piling up. Most recently, an investigation by The Financial Times found that companies and individuals “rushing to go green have been spending millions on ‘carbon credit’ projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.”

    The London newspaper’s environment correspondent, Fiona Harvey, wrote of “widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organizations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.” In other cases, organizations profit by selling credits for environmental projects they would have undertaken anyway.

  29. Rocky Lore
    September 7, 2007 - 08:50 PM on September 7th, 2007

    It’s “save the earth, but don’t you dare touch my private jet” and “redistribute the wealth, except mine!”

  30. snowy egret
    September 7, 2007 - 11:15 PM on September 7th, 2007

    Send SAN FRAN LIB to the planet of ALPHA 177 as well a good place for greens liberals and wackos and star fleet research teams that would rather be somewhere else=))

  31. San Francisco Liberal
    September 8, 2007 - 11:11 AM on September 8th, 2007

    “Even some environmentalists oppose carbon credits because, they say, offsets tend to give the impression that global warming is being solved.”

    ———————————-

    None of the Liberals I associate with who consider themselves environmentalists wold even imagine that by using carbon offsets we are “solving global warming”.

    Not at all.

    Like I said, we can’t take back our impact, but we can try and create balance, or at the very least, strive to create balance.

    We take from one area, we are obliged to give in another.

  32. PCD
    September 8, 2007 - 12:04 PM on September 8th, 2007

    SFL, why not take everything from you so called caring people and make you live like the Unabomber did?

    Also, I’m waiting for you to admit you and your wife were fools to invest in those magic boxes to assuage your liberal guilt.

  33. Drake
    September 8, 2007 - 12:22 PM on September 8th, 2007

    So SFL, following your line of thinking, I guess you think it’s ok to beat your wife as long as you give money to battered women charities. Obviously one balances out the other so that makes it alright. Carbon offsets, just another simple minded idea from simple minded liberals. Thanks for the laugh though.

  34. Robert
    September 8, 2007 - 01:10 PM on September 8th, 2007

    Drake you example analogy is perfect. It makes no sense whatsoever to buy so-called carbon offsets.

  35. snowy egret
    September 8, 2007 - 07:55 PM on September 8th, 2007

    I heard that when the FBI searched the unibomber shack there was a well read copy of AL GORE eco-malarkey book EARTH IN THE BALACE was found there and dose the unibomber a big time eco-freak get to see gore rediclous film A INCONVENT TRUTH? and i also hear that CHARLES MANSON and his radical bunch were big time eco-wackos and in fact when squeaky frome was questioned why she tried to shoot GERALD FORD she said I DID IT FOR THE TREES making him and his followers a bunch of radical eco-wackos and animals wackos as well:-b

  36. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 01:35 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “So SFL, following your line of thinking, I guess you think it’s ok to beat your wife as long as you give money to battered women charities. Obviously one balances out the other so that makes it alright.”

    That’s pretty stupid thinking, Drake. But I wouldn’t except anything better from you, from what I’ve read here.

    Beating your spouse is illegal. Contributing to global warming and climate change is not illegal.

    Thanks for the laugh, though. try again.

    :d/

  37. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 01:38 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “It makes no sense whatsoever to buy so-called carbon offsets.”

    ————————–

    Yes, it does.

    You take from one area of the environment with your impact, and then you give in another area.

    It’s a beautiful concept, and is fast becoming a popular thing to do.

    You what’s NOT becoming a popular thing? Conservatism.

    LOL…you guys are digging your own political graves with your ignorance.

    I’m loving it!

  38. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 01:45 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “Also, I’m waiting for you to admit you and your wife were fools to invest in those magic boxes to assuage your liberal guilt.”

    ——————————–

    Composting bins are not “magic boxes”.

    LOL…I fucking love you guys sometimes…magic boxes…(!)

  39. BonBon
    September 9, 2007 - 02:20 PM on September 9th, 2007

    And if global warming is such a big problem please tell me what’s your solution to volcanic eruptions. Did you know that one eruption from one volcano puts more greenhouse gases into the air than the total human population puts in in 50 years.

    How do we solve that one? [-(

  40. PCD
    September 9, 2007 - 02:50 PM on September 9th, 2007

    38, SFL, you are one dishonest piece of crap. YOU were the one who said YOU invested in these boxes to turn Animal waste, ie. MANURE, into fertilizer. YOU are one dishonest piece of crap that belongs in one of your magical composting boxes because only stupid liberals like you don’t know that animal waste ALREADY IS MANURE!!!

  41. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 03:38 PM on September 9th, 2007

    PCD, look at my #16. I corrected what I mentioned #6.

    Catch up, man. We’re up in the 40’s now.

    You gotta be quicker than that.

  42. PCD
    September 9, 2007 - 03:43 PM on September 9th, 2007

    41, NO, you owe an apology to me. Animal waste is called Manure. Farmers have been using it for centuries as fertilizer.

    You corrected nothing in 16, and are continuing to run away from facing up to the fact you and your wife are stupid for investing in that box.

  43. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 03:59 PM on September 9th, 2007

    Dude, get off the animal waste…that was corrected in #16.

    The waste that is put into a Compost Bin is organic food stuffs. Scraps of food and even paper (which are kept out of the sewers and landfills and reused for your garden or farm).

    You’re not being sharp here, PCD. Read #16 slowly, and then read this one again slowly and move on.

    8-|

  44. Drake
    September 9, 2007 - 04:03 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “That’s pretty stupid thinking, Drake. But I wouldn’t except anything better from you, from what I’ve read here.”

    “Beating your spouse is illegal. Contributing to global warming and climate change is not illegal.”

    That’s really the best you could do? You are so pathetic it is funny. Seriously, I can only assume you didn’t understand the analogy, because otherwise you’re a complete idiot who has just implied that you think if something isn’t illegal it does no harm. That is the only other conclusion to be drawn from what you wrote even though it damages your own argument. You have a great comedy routine but a really lousy argument. http://rightvoices.com/smilies/yahoo_rotfl.gif

    then later:
    “You take from one area of the environment with your impact, and then you give in another area.”

    (or you beat your wife and do her harm, but you give money to help some stranger’s wife who was beaten and it all evens out.) I shudder to think of what else could be justified by such “logic”.

    “It’s a beautiful concept, and is fast becoming a popular thing to do.”

    I guess that depends how long your wife will put up with beatings before she cuts off your privates while youre sleeping. Whoops another analogy, that probably went over your head too.

    So by your line of thinking if it’s popular than it must be right? The mob mentality or group think argument. True idiocy. If you get enough people to believe it, then it becomes true no matter how stupid the argument is. Lovely that you believe in that, but hardly surprising. I have rarely encountered someone so lacking in critical thinking skills. I honestly can’t see how anyone could take you seriously with the kind of rubbish you post. Anyway, your now saying that if you think something is popular it makes it the right thing to do. That is so asinine I really can’t believe even you were dumb enough to post it. Seriously a ten year old should be smarter than that. The obvious question for you is, if everyone else was going to jump off the golden gate bridge would you jump to? If so you’d better hurry up, you may still be able to catch up with your peers. http://rightvoices.com/smilies/yahoo_loser.gif

    Maybe I can dumb this down even more for you. Let’s pretend you have the brains and money to build a full scale coal fired power plant in your backyard. I know it’s a stretch, I doubt you have the ability to build a sandwich in your kitchen, but let’s continue. By your line of thinking you don’t even have to put scrubbers on this plant because you can pollute your own neighborhood all you want, as long as you fund someone composting dog shit on the other side of the world it will all balance out. It doesn’t matter to you how many kids get sick or how bad the air and water becomes in your own neighborhood because you funed something irrelevant to your pollution on the other side of the world. Everything is just alright with you, you’ve done your part. Until your neighbors come to lynch you for killing their kids. I hope that that didn’t go over your head too. Honestly I don’t think I could lose any more respect for you, there’s nothing left but pity now.

  45. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 04:06 PM on September 9th, 2007

    You take from one area of the environment with your impact, and then you give in another area.

    It’s a beautiful concept.

    :)

  46. Drake
    September 9, 2007 - 04:08 PM on September 9th, 2007

    I guess SFL has proven one thing, at least for him, ignorance truly is bliss.

  47. PCD
    September 9, 2007 - 04:11 PM on September 9th, 2007

    46, Drake, SFL is the one who can’t read. He’s another poster child for home schooling kids. His reading is not the best. He thinks saying something he didn’t say before negates his original stupidity. One can tell he’s never been around a farm, except maybe to steal produce from the fields.

  48. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 04:17 PM on September 9th, 2007

    1 “You are so pathetic it is funny”

    2 “you’re a complete idiot”

    3 “probably went over your head”

    4 “True idiocy”

    5 “rarely encountered someone so lacking in critical thinking skills”

    6 “can’t see how anyone could take you seriously”

    7 “That is so asinine”

    8 “you were dumb enough to post”

    9 “a ten year old should be smarter”

    10 “Maybe I can dumb this down even more for you”

    11 “doubt you have the ability to build a sandwich in your kitchen”

    12 “hope that that didn’t go over your head too”

    13 “lose any more respect for you”

    14 “nothing left but pity”

    ————————————–

    What, you couldn’t fit one more in there to make it a solid 15 ?!?!

    Sounds like ol’ SF Liberal really touched a nerve, with you there!

    That’s awesome…I didn’t know that you were so weak, that just ONE comment of mine would upset you SO badly that you would string together as many childish insults as you could fit into one long (and very boring) post.

  49. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 04:23 PM on September 9th, 2007

    Comparing beating your wife to environmental impact is just plain stupid and isn’t a serious argument.

    Sorry, I won’t stoop that low.

    And as for the weak argument ofyours about the plant and the impact on locals…

    Of course the plant shouldn’t be operating in the first place. Let alone without scrubbers and with its negative impact on the population.

    How can I take tripe crap like that seriously? Come on, people…at least make it challenging for me here.

    So no, it wouldn’t be alright, as you described.

  50. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 04:43 PM on September 9th, 2007

    Let me break it down for you.

    Beating your wife is wrong.
    Negativly impacting the environment is wrong.

    Giving money to spousal abuse charity after beating your wife does not make your violence OK.

    Giving money to carbon offset organization after flying a jet, driving on a road trip or whatever does not make your environmental impact OK.

    Giving money to groups that fight spousal violance is a good thing.

    Giving money to groups that give back to the environment is a good thing.

    I seriously cannot make it any easier.

  51. Drake
    September 9, 2007 - 04:48 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “That’s awesome:I didn’t know that you were so weak, that just ONE comment of mine would upset you SO badly that you would string together as many childish insults as you could fit into one long (and very boring) post.”

    You think I’m upset? Now that is funny, like someone like you could bother me. I just like to tell it like it is. When I see someone as ignorant as you I’m not afraid to hurt their feelings. You deserve to know the truth, you’re too stupid to be taken seriously. By the way, claiming you couldn’t read a couple of paragraphs because it’s too long and boring isn’t a sign of intelligence. Your true character shines through yet again.

    “Comparing beating your wife to environmental impact is just plain stupid and isn’t a serious argument.

    Sorry, I won’t stoop that low.”

    In other words you’re too dumb to come up with a legitimate response. Pathetic.

    “Of course the plant shouldn’t be operating in the first place. Let alone without scrubbers and with its negative impact on the population.”

    So it went over your head of course and you decided to throw out a red herring. Truly pathetic. So I think I’ve figured you out. Self abatement is your strategy for victory? I get it now, you try to make yourself look so ignorant and pathetic as to not be worth the trouble to argue with. Amazing what the truly stupid can come up with, intentionally or not.

    “How can I take tripe crap like that seriously? Come on, people:at least make it challenging for me here.”

    Well I don’t know, how do you take the crap you post seriously, maybe if you could figure that out you’d have your answer. I wonder what is so challenging for you by the way. Is coming up with new ways to avoid defending your own arguments that difficult? What a joke, I can’t believe you’re so pathetic that this is the best you can do anymore. =))

  52. Drake
    September 9, 2007 - 05:00 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “Let me break it down for you.

    Beating your wife is wrong.
    Negativly impacting the environment is wrong.

    Giving money to spousal abuse charity after beating your wife does not make your violence OK.

    Giving money to carbon offset organization after flying a jet, driving on a road trip or whatever does not make your environmental impact OK.”

    (funny, that’s not what you said earlier, I guess we finally knocked some sense into you, glad you can admit you’re wrong, finally.)

    “Giving money to groups that fight spousal violance is a good thing.

    Giving money to groups that give back to the environment is a good thing.

    I seriously cannot make it any easier.”

    That’s awesome he finally got it, way to go junior! Seriously though, you have to admit someone helped you with this. You’re not going to convince anyone you came up with that alone. You found some 10 year old to spell it out for you. Now if you can just get him to dumb it down enough for you to understand it. That could be tricky.l-)

  53. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 09:41 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “You think I’m upset? Now that is funny, like someone like you could bother me”

    —————-

    Obviously you are upset.

    Look at you! You’re writing like a middle school kid, slinging childish taunts like mud…

    Seriously, you can’t be much older than 17…maybe, 18…right?

    My advice? For starters, get a thicker skin. Don’t let one comment get you so riled up!

    ——————-

    You take from one area of the environment with your impact, and then you give in another area.

    It’s a beautiful, simple concept for most.

    For some, it’s a bit harder I guess.

  54. San Francisco Liberal
    September 9, 2007 - 09:43 PM on September 9th, 2007

    “When I see someone as ignorant as you I’m not afraid to hurt their feelings”

    ————————–

    No, you’re not hurting my feelings, you are embarrassing yourself.

    Come on, settle down and talk like an adult.

  55. Robert
    September 10, 2007 - 02:43 AM on September 10th, 2007

    Getting back to the original topic of this thread, Gore proves himself to be an arch-hypocrite. Flying around in his private jet to Global Warming rallies then wagging his finger at the rest of us telling us it’s our fault and we need to change our lifestyle!

  56. San Francisco Liberal
    September 10, 2007 - 11:20 AM on September 10th, 2007

    …back to Gore…

    flying around on his private jet is not good environmental behavior, of course.

    but when it’s necessary to travel like that, as I said in my original point, I’m sure the Gore Team buys Carbon Offsets – not making the impact “OK”, but helping to create some balance…

    Also, remember what he’s doing when flying around…teaching people to be environmentaly aware…he is spreading the message and increasing the ranks of people who care about the environment.

    That said, it would be better if he drove a bio-fuel bus around the nation to give his talks. But that’s way too slow a method of transport.

  57. Robert
    September 10, 2007 - 05:05 PM on September 10th, 2007

    SFL you’ve made a valiant effort to rationalize Gore’s hypocrisy, but the bottom line is he’s a fraud, a hypocrite, and a profiteer. There just isn’t any other logical, reasonable conclusion.

  58. Robert
    September 10, 2007 - 05:09 PM on September 10th, 2007

    It’s a shame too, because as I recall, he was a pretty good Senator for years. He did support the efforts that led to the creation of the Internet by voting for funding. Then he got tangled up with the Klinton Krime Syndicate, and it’s been all downhill since: The Ozone hole eco-fraud, Bagman for the Klintons, his own failed campaign, then his emergence as the Messiah and Savior of the Church of Global Warming.

  59. San Francisco Liberal
    September 10, 2007 - 05:13 PM on September 10th, 2007

    “SFL you’ve made a valiant effort to rationalize Gore’s hypocrisy, but the bottom line is he’s a fraud, a hypocrite, and a profiteer. There just isn’t any other logical, reasonable conclusion.”

    ———————

    Thanks bro, but of course you know that’s just your opinion.

    I, and millions of other americans think he’s a great man for what he’s doing to promote awareness on the environment.

    We think he should have been president in 2000 (came down to within 500 votes in FL – and remember he took the popular vote too) and we think that we’d all be a lot better off as a nation and with our environment if this man had become president.

    You can call him whatever you want, but it doesn’t make it a fact.

  60. San Francisco Liberal
    September 10, 2007 - 05:14 PM on September 10th, 2007

    I wonder if TN will go back to having two Dem. Senators in 2009?

    Maybe he could run for his old chair again, someday…

  61. Robert
    September 10, 2007 - 05:16 PM on September 10th, 2007

    I hereby now make this suggestion: All members of the Church of Global Warming should immediately take the following pledge:

    1. They will never drive a fuel-burning, CO2-generating vehicle. They will use public transportation, ride a green Chinese ‘Mao” style bicycle, or walk.

    2. They will never again use a fireplace or any other polluting heat source to heat their homes. Fireplaces should be banned anyway; they should be only for the super-rich and party members (like Dianne Feinstein) to use. The proletariat does not not deserve fireplaces.

    They will never let themselves be transported in a medical emergency by any fuel-burning mode of transportation. They’llsend for a Rickshaw; yes the driver exhales CO2 but Carbon offsets purchased from Al Gore’s UK Company easily account for that.

  62. San Francisco Liberal
    September 10, 2007 - 05:23 PM on September 10th, 2007

    1. I am fortunate to live in SF, where we have a fairly decent public transportation system. I take the bus/train to school, work, get groceries and to get to friends houses. I try to limit my driving to weekend trips out of the city.

    2. I don’t own a fireplace; the proletariat indeed does not own them. LOL…you’re pretty funny sometimes, Robert!

    3. I’ll have to leave it to the municipality that would transport me to a hospital on what kinds of vehicles to use. With more liberal and environmental pressure that Gore has been using, maybe someday fossil-buring vehicles will be replaced sooner rather than later, when we’re all choking on fumes and dying by the millions of respiratory illnesses.

  63. Robert
    September 10, 2007 - 05:23 PM on September 10th, 2007

    Almost forgot:

    #4: Refrain from flatulation, as it emits Methane, a known greenhouse gas. If it absolutlely cannot be avoided, then it will be recorded, reported, and the flatulator will voluntarily purchase Carbon offsets from Al Gore’s company to make amends.

  64. San Francisco Liberal
    September 10, 2007 - 05:29 PM on September 10th, 2007

    Imagine if some radical liberal governemtn took hold here in the US, and forced – under the threat of jail – consumers to purchase Carbon Offsets to seek balance with their carbon footprints…

    You guys would LOVE living in THAT kind of system, I bet!

    (robert has heart attack, PCD immigrates to Cuba, and Peejz joins the underground resistance)

  65. Robert
    September 10, 2007 - 05:30 PM on September 10th, 2007

    “…maybe someday fossil-buring vehicles will be replaced sooner rather than later, when we’re all choking on fumes and dying by the millions of respiratory illnesses.”

    I believe we will be using oil and other carbon-based fuels for transportation for as long as those who own the infrastructure to produce them are making huge amounts of money, regardless of anything else.

    They won’t relent until they have to, and by then they will own the next technology.
    Sad, but true.

  66. San Francisco Liberal
    September 10, 2007 - 05:53 PM on September 10th, 2007

    :o

    I agree 100%, Robert…

  67. snowy egret
    September 16, 2007 - 07:15 PM on September 16th, 2007

    How about if we send SFL,AL GORE and JOHN EDWARDS to the dilithium cracking station of ALPHA DELTA i understand its fully automated abd star ship may come around maybe ever 20 years:>

Leave a Reply

Right Voices uses Gravatar to display individual comment author icons. If you'd like your own icon next to your name, then go to Gravatar.com and sign up - it's easy!

:) :( :d :"> :(( \:d/ :x 8-| /:) :o :-? :-" :-w ;) [-( :)>- more »