Al Gore and his "green" attitude
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-06-09
In Reply to: A tale of 2 houses - cj
is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen. That fat man preaches to everyone about global warming and then jumps on his private jets and flies off. The kicker is that he is getting rich off of this scam too.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
By the way, technically Gore did win . . .
in 2000. He was cheated out of that election by . . . oh let's see . . . by the crooked business that went down in Florida which happened to have Bush's brother as governor. Maybe you were sleeping when all that went down and came out as fact! And another thing, 98% of the hate spewing on this board has been by the McCain/Palin fans, but I guess they learned how to be that way from those hate mongerers that they support!! No hatred here . . . just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Gore lies AGAIN!!
Gore criticizes Cheney for answering the scurrilous crap that the Democrats have been piling on Bush, saying "I waited two years before criticizing Bush".
Umm...not quite, Internet Breath. Here's the link to the speech he made in ༾ trashing Bush, Cheney and the cabinet - calling them "un-American". (Bush took office in ༽.)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/flashback_gore_calls_bush_policies_un-american_in_2002_speech.html
Gore lying
I am not an AL Gore fan but I am wondering what indicates he lied?
He lost the election of 2000 and was critical in 2002. Please (and I do mean this politely) what I am missing.
popular vote was Gore
Im trying to remember back from 2000..there was a university, I think maybe University of Chicago..which did a recount and Gore won. If all the ballots had been counted and all the registered voters who were turned away were allowed to vote, based on the party they were registered under, Gore would have won. I remember back in 2001, the outrage, so I contacted the university and was assured the public would be allowed a copy of the study on the recount. Geez..seems like centuries ago..I will check back with my political friends and find out the university..Maybe they still are offering their results on the recount.In any case, however, to be fair, when there is a election in doubt, IMHO, you go with the popular vote, which was Gore.
Gore was a FAR better choice for America.
That's why we elected him. It took a crony-packed SCOTUS to act illegally to appoint Bush president even AFTER Repubs tried their best to suppress as many votes as possible to get him elected. It just wasn't good enough, so overwhelming was the vote for Gore.
So, looks like you're in the minority opinion box again. Must be hard having that happen time after time.
sorry, I meant Gore, not Kerry....(nm)
nm
Gee, he was fine with you when he supported Gore
Reminds me of the line from the movie Dune....
"The sleeper has awoken".
Everybody KNOWS Al Gore won the popular vote
It is awfully coincidental that the state that had the problems counting their votes, which ultimately cost AL Gore the election, was what? Oh thats's right it was....FLORIDA - George Bush's brother's state. You do remember Jeb was governor of Florida during that time, don't you?
Gore is laughable and pathetic anyway.
nm
Oh, I know. Al Gore is the biggest phony
nm
Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.
I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!
From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
i can remember relatives saying if gore won, he would be antichrist
x
Tennessee Votes for Gore Statue.
I'd give my kingdom to be a pigeon for just one day.
Global warming and the swiftboaring of Al Gore: A timeline
http://scienceblogs.com/drcharles/2006/08/a_timeline_tracing_the_origins.php
Gore's "science" on global warming is flawed....
all one has to do is research the topic. On that basis alone he should not gave gotten the prize, and that has nothing to do with brain washing political propaganda. The fact that so many just buy his theory without looking at both sides is what smacks of political brain washing. No one asked anyone to defend the choice and we are all entitled to our opinions. This is a liberal gimme and has been for years...there was a time when it was a vaulted honor. I don't think many consider it as such anymore...and choosing Gore will not help that downward spiral I'm afraid. And, to be brutally honest...your description "esteemed leader...." and AL Ifoundedtheinternet Gore are diametrically in opposition. Again...in my opinion...to which I am entitled...check the liberal talking points...you are the live and let live people. Right...? Or do you want to just announce that it is liberals live and let liberals live?
Even Al Gore thinks caps and trade is a bad idea!!!
xx
I think Gore has turned off enough people recently that most Dems don't even support him.
Thank God he was not elected.
Gore gave a superb speech today, very inspiring...
...though anyone addicted to Fox wouldn't know it. He really nailed the problem right on the old square head - best speech that's been given in years now. Naturally, the networks are too frightened to utter more than a peep about it, but maybe C-span is re-running it, if you get the chance check it out.
I'd almost forgotten how refreshing it is to see a politician really speak to an unrehearsed crowd without reading from a teleprompter or uttering gotta protect 'mericans and they hate us for our freedom and 9/11 every other line. Nice to know someone sees what's going on and is actually concerned about protecting rule by Constitutional provisions for a change.
You were the one who had the whatever attitude.sm
-It happens all the time...move on.-
I beg to differ.
What an attitude!
I can see by reading along that you are simply not able to have a logical conversation with ANYONE despite my being respectful. And for your information, the reason I made the statement that we cannot agree is that we are speaking from different basic ethical and moral stands and neither of us is willing to budge. I will choose life and you will choose to end life. You really should not fall back on your religious convictions to explain your belief system, though. I am sure there are pro-choice Christians and I am careful to separate my personal feelings from all of Christianity. This is something you seem unable or unwilling to do. I am not quite sure why anyone would attempt to debate someone such as yourself, but I am sure I will not make that mistake again. It seems you have effectively silenced anyone who does not agree with you often in your lifetime. How nice for you.
what an attitude....
That's your only criterium for voting for the President of the United States?
And you are rich.
This is pathetic.
It's not condescending attitude that
turns you away from Obama, it is your refusal to think for yourself and to vote for your own best interests.
No reason for that attitude.
She was just posting those as examples of things that have been said that are false and that what the OP posted about was yet another one of those rumors that just aren't true.
And this is exactly the kind of attitude
that I feel will ruin us if Obama is elected. Oh...if you don't want to pay your fair share.....just don't make as much. Why should people feel like they have to lower their income. It will make hard working people not want to work hard because the government just takes what they earn. Then you have the people who don't make anything and are living off of the government and that number will grow. The more government assistance given, the more they want and the more they will take. It will make spending for these programs outrageous. Why should we enable people to mooch off of the government?
I understand there are people who legitimately need help. People who are truly disabled and can't work. However, there are many others who are literally just mooching so they don't have to work.
I have to think of MY future. I have two kids who will go through college. One boy is a freshman now so college really isn't too fair away. I have a house I'm paying for. I have a special needs child that requires more of my money. I want to put my hard earned money back for my kids and myself for a rainy day. I don't want it taken from me and given to people who I don't know and who I don't know whether they truly need it or are just lying and mooching off of the government.
The bottom line is this, making more money is an incentive to work hard. You take their money away and give to people who don't work hard and what does that show.....it shows that you don't have to work hard because the government will pick of the tab and it shows the hard workers....why bother. I don't want that for my country. I don't want my kids raised in that kind of life thinking that hard work doesn't pay off.
what a sourpus attitude.
What a condescending attitude.
.
You have the typical dem attitude of it's everyone
nm
Well, with an attitude like that, you're probably right.
Ever heard of innovation? Trying new things? Evolution? Going with the flow? Growth? Change? Hope? Faith?
Yes, YOUR attitude is one our forefathers envisioned, huh?! lol
geez.
It we adopt that attitude, we will be plunged into war
for the foreseeable future. I certainly do not want that, and I wouldn't think you would either. I have worked very closely with people from the middle east, mostly from Jordan and Pakistan, and I can most assuredly say that it is not US, the American people that they hate, it is our governmental policies that they hate. Those same policies of interference when it is not warranted that have created this chasm. It is not about cultural differences or about religion, the resistance is coming from that sector of radicalism. We have used and manipulated the peoples and governments of the middle east for our own ends for generations.
Your words are not acceptable to me because they tell me that there is no hope and to just give up and give in to the fact that we are going to be embroiled in war forever. I don't want that for my children or for my children's children.
Yes, i have plenty to keep me busy. Your attitude
just makes you seem somewhat sexist and I really was just curious? 
Why do you say Obama has a condescending attitude? I think he is ...sm
much more understanding of the problems of the average American than McCain is.
No, Francie has the attitude. SHE turns me away
nm
no, YOUR attitude is what scares sensible people.
x
You have a really bad attitude and I will never answer any more of your posts because
You just don't get it at all. Go back to Fox News and rest assured, my time will not be wasted on your ignorance anymore.
Well please don't apply one person's attitude to everyone - sm
I for one am very sad that his Grandmother passed away, particularly at this time in his life.
See? It's just that kind of mean-spirited attitude
the republican party. Look at the difference in the crowds at the post-election speeches: One that was all-inclusive, and one that was obviously quite exclusive. One in which the candidate and the people who voted for him were willing to reach their hands out to the defeated party and say, "C'mon we're all in this thing together", and one in which the candidate's party booed the winner.
It's not 'just words', as you put it... it's the beginning of a dialogue, something that's been missing not only within the US, but also between the US and the rest of the world.
McCain is not mean-spirited. He was a good candidate, ran a good race, and would most likely have been a good president. But the party he represents has been consumed in recent years by greed and short-sightedness. And that seems to have gone a long way towards cultivating the mean-spiritedness that's been the hallmark of that party for the last couple of decades.
I think the best thing the Republican Party can do for itself and for future elections is to learn from the mistakes of the last 20 years, and start making changes, and conducting themselves like this is the 21st century, not the 16th century. This country was long overdue for a change for the better, and to embrace the 21st century, not fear it.
That attitude is why racism still exists.....
nm
with that "better than thou" attitude
i have nothing to say
Im not surprised you voted Obama. i bet your nose is turned up right now
If you can't figure out what i mean, surely you are the kind of person I could trust to know how the economy got this way and what to do to save it...
Your holier than thou attitude....(sm)
is quite amazing. Exactly how do you know that Obama was not sent by God, or as you would say, that the will of mankind by choosing Obama is not in line with the will of God? Has, per chance, your god bestowed upon you the gift of seeing into the future? If this is not the case, exactly what do you base your assumptions about the job Obama will do on? Maybe its because you have bought into the fear doctrine of Bush so much that you can't see beyond it.
You said, *If you believe for one minute that Obama is going to change the way that Iran or any other country in the middle east view America you are very, very naive. The only thing Obama will accomplish will be to weaken this country in an effort to make us more "likeable" to the world and in the end the only thing we will be is weak*
I would love to hear your definition of *weak.* From what I can gather from your posts, weak in your eyes is the unwillingness to use force first. So, what is so wrong with diplomacy? Is your only response to a situation the *shoot first and ask questions later* mentality? Believe it or not, there is strength in the ability to negotiate and compromise with others. Since you base everything on religion, what does your Bible say about that? Does it not teach compassion and understanding? Of have you just interpreted it in a manner that suits you personally?
Do I believe Obama will put an end to offshoring American jobs? I believe that is his goal, unlike Bush and McCain who both supported tax breaks for companies overseas who do that exact thing. Look up their voting records.
*How can he make America liked and respected by other countries, and take away a source of income for so many in third world countries?* It's called FAIR TRADE. Look it up. Maybe you didn't pay attention to what Obama was saying during his campaign. Did you even listen to him, or did you just get the Fox rendition? I would be willing to bet that those *third world countries* know more about his policies than you do, and yet they overwhelmingly support him.
And then there's the middle east. Everyone says they don't want Iran to have nukes. I agree, but I also don't want anyone else to have nukes either. You would argue that Iran is too radical to be trusted with them. I would say the same thing about Israel and the US. Under Bush's reign we have started 2 major wars and are presently funding Israel in its war to the tune of about over 2 billion a year in direct military support. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a while. If you lived in Iran (a democratic state), you saw this behavior, and you know you are labeled as *next* on the Bush hit list, wouldn't you be trying to arm up?
Now I know you're going to say that each and every one of those wars was justified, but you are sooo wrong it's ridiculous. Israel -- They have been bullying everyone over there for years in the name of the holy land and are currently killing civilians at an alarming rate. Iraq -- An unjust war, to say the least. And then there's Afghanistan, which was supposed to be retaliation for 9/11. Why do you think 9/11 happened? Do you think before 9/11 that everyone in the world just loved the US? News flash -- No, they didn't. The US has been meddling in the middle east for years on end (which included putting people like Saddam in power). So, you think that the Bush administration had no way of seeing it coming. Maybe you missed this interview. It's very enlightening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5TkWGsmZF0
And yet, you would say that Bush has *kept us safe.* What a joke!
Amazingly, you call me naive when I am the one looking at the facts, and all you have are innuendos, rumors and guesses about what may happen. Unfounded fears about the future do nothing for the progression of society. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will be able to see the truth.
You have a good attitude Penny sm
I'm glad you welcomed me back but I see an Obama supporter believe it or not has called me a moron. I wonder what's up with that?
It's glaringly obvious who has the attitude here...(sm)
Instead of actually contributing the conversation, you came along and just decided to pick out someone for a fight. I really am happy that you have such a wonderful life and that this crisis is seemingly not affecting you. However, I don't believe that gives you the right to criticize those who are being affected. But then again, I would assume that was your point -- to just stir up a fight. Maybe you should spend some of that $600 a month on a hobby.
BTW, if I were trying to be nasty, I would have actually told you that you are mindless wonder instead of just saying I would have called you something else. LOL.
Nice attitude there, lifelong Democrat....
and I was not whining. There were a couple complaining that they did not want conservatives here. The board monitor has said many times cross posting was fine. The liberals on this board were the ones whining....and I was going to respect the whining...and I was trying to be nice about it. Unlike YOU I might add. THAT is the liberal attitude I am talking about. If someone disagrees with you, they are making trouble. You absolutely cannot handle someone not endorsing your every idea. You want to make me public enemy #1 and all I did was disagree with a point of view. Are you really that insecure? Obviously the answer to that is yes. I was trying to extend an olive branch and you say I'm whining. What a condescending, elitist attitude....but then, why should that surprise me, lifelong Democrat??
This kind of attitude will ensure another GOP defeat
x
I hope he appreciates your servile attitude
Enough already.
Oh, yeah. I see now why you've got such a *feel good* attitude.
Lurker had the courage to try to debate you, tried to ignore your rude comments and personal attacks. Yes, your intelligent debate triggered responses by Lurker, as follow:
Please do not preach at me and tell me I don't understand the concept of working for a living. I try my best not to berate or belittle anyone on this board and I would appreciate the same consideration.
Please don’t lump me in your hate and rhetoric category. I don't belong there.
I am very disheartened at this time and altho I have taken a couple of weeks off these boards, evidently it is not enough time, my emotions are still too raw to be on a politics board, either one of them. So, again, I will remove myself from this setting for awhile. Aho.
I can see from her above post why you're so happy. Looks like you succeeded in chasing her away for a while, too. 
You have such a better-than-you attitude, I can't stand to read your posts anymore.
And you call yoruself a Christian, PREACHING to the rest of us how we should live our lives! You are the worst kind of Christian, SO judgmental.
This attitude is exactly why we are in such a mess and the country was brought down in the past 8 y
nm
The juvenile attitude of spending money we dont
nm
That kind of attitude makes you sound jealous and petty..
I'm sorry if you are offended by my opinion that I don't want to pay more in taxes. You wouldn't either if the tables were turned.
I like Stephen Colbert's attitude. He said concerning the remarks about colors: "That was th
Dr. Seuss book ever!" We take ourselves so seriously. Someone is always going to be offended.
|
