comment #1

D.Z. says ...

"That, ladies and germs, is why Al Gore is such a respected statesman. Because he's not one to blow with the wind."

You seem to forget his centrist positions which cost him an election against the son of the guy his buddy beat eight years earlier.

comment #2

Alan Cerny says ...

Psst... your Sarcasm-o-meter's switched off.

comment #3

Geoff says ...

It's so true. I mean, his passion was palpable all through those 8 years as Vice.

comment #4

sardine says ...

i lived in chgo for some time. in the past 2 days i have been told by interesting people, gore might be obama's veep. what do you think?, Jeffy?

comment #5

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Gore doesn't get Obama one vote, let alone one state, that he doesn't have already.

"You seem to forget his centrist positions which cost him an election against the son of the guy his buddy beat eight years earlier."

But I thought Gore won that election! By the popular vote, not that it matters under our Constitution, he did. So evidently centrism sells, since centrist Gore won three national elections in a row.

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: He won, but it wasn't a mandate.

comment #7

bb says ...

What underwater city does Gore expect Obama to rule from?

comment #8

NotImpressedYet says ...

Gore stood outside the fray during the primary so that he could help mediate between Obama and Clinton (and more realistically help facilitate an exit for Clinton) if things didn't resolve by themselves.

But remember, it's the policy of Hollwood Elsewhere that anyone who wasn't 200% behind Obama during the primaries is stupid or a coward or both!

comment #9

Todd says ...

So really the way I see it is if Obama takes him at his word 'I Intend To Do Whatever I Can To Make Sure Obama Is Elected' and chooses him as his VP. The presidential race is over at that point. I hope I don't need to explain myself. (Historical flooding, increase in tornados, tornados hitting places they have not normally not hit southern CA, plus a man with experience and history in winning over the majority of the voting public.) Now it's up to Obama to "Do the Right Thing".

Yes DZ even I would vote for Obama hands down.

comment #10

roman says ...

Gore is the embodiment of an establishment Dem from a generation on the way out.

So far Barack has been masterful at not falling into the boomer Dem trap, which is either: a) accept the permanent campaign and become maniacal (the Clintons), or b) reject it only to be tarred as weak, elitist and out of touch (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry).

"Old politics" is code for boomers. Barack is essentially running against a generation; purging himself and us of the extremely high negatives of both WJC and GWB (albeit the latter considerably higher then the former) and of the pussyassness that brought down the other abovementioned three.

comment #11

Chicago48 says ...

Jeff, IMO Obama is the better candidate but i swear sometimes he comes off too evangelical for me....and I remember our current President was born-again Christian and evangelical...I hope Obama is not a repeat performance....

comment #12

Balthazar says ...

I'M more politically relevant than Al fucking Gore, the global-warming mongoloid.

comment #13

Todd says ...

I'm going to do a DZ here.

To Roman.You apparently support the politics in Logan's Run. But be forewarned us people over thirty aren't going anywhere, we are living longer and are the largest voting block so suck it asswipe.

comment #14

NotImpressedYet says ...

Chicago48,

Everybody's exposed to the candidates in different ways, but I'm shocked that you could find any similarity in how faith is portrayed in Obama's and Bush's lives. Bush is, after all, the man who when asked who his favoritue philosopher was, said JESUS. Obama on the other hand was a law professor at the University of Chicago, where he employed the SOCRATIC method.

Seriously though, don't you think Bush's various statements on faith and his actions in life are easily 100 times nuttier than anything Obama has ever said?

comment #15

CinemaPhreek says ...

(with apologies to Kevin Andrew Walker)

Only in world this shitty would loyalty to one's friends and colleagues be spit upon.

Gore has again showed the strength of his character only to have Monday morning quarterbacks like Wells try to spin it into something to be belittled. He had no reason to be anything other than loyal to the Clintons.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not such a blind follower not to understand that someone like Gore might have reservations about his experience. He also had the grace to wait a week to announce anything, so it would seem like he was like so many other Clinton supporters who ran once the ship sank.

Again, Gore has shown he is a class act and by not recognizing it the country again shows its not worthy of his service to it.

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

And yet Gore remains silent on the repeated challenges for a global warming debate, most notably from the founder of the Weather Channel.

comment #17

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

"What underwater city does Gore expect Obama to rule from?"

Rapture.

Because that's where Bush and Cheney are apparently living. And it has great music. And massive drills.

comment #18

supertaster says ...

CinemaPhreek wrote: Again, Gore has shown he is a class act

Do you invest in his carbon credit trading firm or something? A class act?? A man who whips the world up into a frenzy (rightly or wrongly) about global warming while having put in place years and years in advance mechanisms by which to cash in on the hysteria?? This is no saint looking to simply save the world, this is someone with a story to sell and a few billion dollars to make -- any benefit to the environemt is incidental. He is a huckster without a shred of integrity -- an unapologetic environmental profiteer.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you didn't know about Gore's huge financial interest in seeing global wamring become an industry when you made that statement, the one where you associated Gore with "class".

comment #19

CinemaPhreek says ...

Ah, yes, those billions of dollars to be made from carbon trading... (YAWN)

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Cinemaphreek: "Gore has again showed the strength of his character only to have Monday morning quarterbacks like Wells try to spin it into something to be belittled."

Gore[not to mention Kerry] owes us for letting an idiot like Bush win; and I don't mean by giving up on further legal action.

Josh: "And yet Gore remains silent on the repeated challenges for a global warming debate, most notably from the founder of the Weather Channel."

When Bush and the Pentagon acknowledge global warming, it's no longer a challenge.

taster: "A man who whips the world up into a frenzy (rightly or wrongly) about global warming while having put in place years and years in advance mechanisms by which to cash in on the hysteria??"

As opposed to a guy who lets his cronies cash in on the War on Terror?

"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you didn't know about Gore's huge financial interest in seeing global wamring become an industry when you made that statement, the one where you associated Gore with "class"."

I'm not sure why energy-efficient technology is somehow evil. Last time I checked, capitalists and entrepreneurs who actually choose to invest, rather than beg for corporate welfare, call it "progress".

comment #21

supertaster says ...

Cinemaphreek wrote Ah, yes, those billions of dollars to be made from carbon trading... (YAWN)

you literally made me laugh out loud (you know, lol), and that's rare...you'd be like someone saying in 1996 "ah, yes, those billions to made from internet advertising...(YAWN)"

Your ignorance is not a valid defense of Gore's machinations.

Zelter, you're talking about a war profiteer, and good for you...but it's a bit of a non-sequitir. I'm not condemning the business of "green," I'm slamming the preacher who's got his hand in the charity box.

comment #22

Todd says ...

So now some of you are attacking Gore for being a capitalist. I'd rather have a capitalist billion in office for making the world environment better than a capitalist billion in office who makes his money through promoting the use of burning fossil fuels and putting more money into the military industrial complex.

comment #23

Indeed says ...

D.Z.: "When Bush and the Pentagon acknowledge global warming, it's no longer a challenge."

So Bush, the President who apparently gets everything wrong, is supposed to be believed when it comes to global warming? And just because our leader tells us to follow it, we should do so blindly?

Wow, the founding fathers would be proud of you.

comment #24

Josh Massey says ...

Dammit Indeed, I go and type almost the exact same thing, and at the last minute look up and see it's already there.

comment #25

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"So now some of you are attacking Gore for being a capitalist. I'd rather have a capitalist billion in office for making the world environment better than a capitalist billion in office who makes his money through promoting the use of burning fossil fuels and putting more money into the military industrial complex."

Yeah, I'll never forget the trees attacking us on September 11th. Stupid useless military industrial complex.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Indeed: "So Bush, the President who apparently gets everything wrong, is supposed to be believed when it comes to global warming?"

Yes, because he's using research and data this time.

"And just because our leader tells us to follow it, we should do so blindly?"

But it's fine and dandy when it's WMDs, right?

Mgmax: "Yeah, I'll never forget the trees attacking us on September 11th."

I'll never forget the Pentagon saying that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism...

"Stupid useless military industrial complex."

Nice to know we agree on something.

comment #27

Todd says ...

Mgmax we were attacked by a group of murderers from Saudi Arabia that's why we went to Iraq to fight them. Stupid useless CIA.

Wait that last line belongs in the Get Smart movie post.

comment #28

supertaster says ...

Todd wrote: So now some of you are attacking Gore for being a capitalist

No, Todd, a capitalist who calls himself a capitalist is one you can trust. Gore, on the other hand, has disguised himself as the altruistic environmental messiah while taking premeditated steps to cash in on what he is selling to the world as a moral imperative.

He quietly began investing in companies positioned to benefit from the green movement years and years before going on his crusade, and if you don't see the ethical conflict there, well, god bless your child-like innocence, I wish I could look at the world as fondly.

comment #29

bents75 says ...

"...if you don't see the ethical conflict there, well, god bless your child-like innocence, I wish I could look at the world as fondly."

I don't see the ethical conflict there at all. Maybe he made the investment to recieve a profit, or maybe he did to put more money into a cause that no one else was putting money in to. Either way, his motivations don't change the facts.

I'd rather have someone expect to make a profit off of a scientific cause they're promoting than someone who supports invading a country, contrary to evidence, and then offers no bid contracts to his business connections.

The difference is that thousands of people aren't dying so that Gore can make money.

comment #30

bents75 says ...

Nevermind, I see people already pointed out the contradiction and your only argument seems to be that Gore himself rubs you the wrong way.

Fair enough.

Now you're only clueless because it's painfully obvious who you casted a vote for in 2000.

comment #31

supertaster says ...

I'd rather have someone expect to make a profit off of a scientific cause they're promoting than someone who supports invading a country, contrary to evidence, and then offers no bid contracts to his business connections.

The difference is that thousands of people aren't dying so that Gore can make money.

Oh bentsy...

I say it is raining outside and you say "I'd rather have rain than herpes". No one is comparing Gore to Bush, so why are you? Weak, weak rebuttal,.

I VOTED FOR GORE in 2000. I established this on the "We Wuz Robbed" thread a few days ago.

This is not some marketer trying to convince you of a "need" for something, this is a guy who is telling everyone it is their DUTY to fight for a cause he is promoting and PROFITING from. If that doesn't make you question his motives then, like I said to the other guy, god bless your naivety.

Profits and altruism don't mix. By definition there is an ethical conflict.

comment #32

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"I don't see the ethical conflict there at all. Maybe he made the investment to recieve a profit, or maybe he did to put more money into a cause that no one else was putting money in to."

I have no idea if Gore is an evil climate profiteer or not, but it is pretty funny to see the crowd who thinks every time Halliburton serves up an MRE to a soldier it's making evil obscene in-cahoots-with-Bush no blood for oil profits, suddenly defend the innocence of business as practiced by a politician whose investments and positions coincide.

comment #33

Indeed says ...

D.Z.: "Yes, because he's using research and data this time."

The same research and data thats so flimsy that even the self appointed guru of the subject wont consider engaging in a debate with those who disagree because he's obviously worried about getting his preverbial ass handed to him?

comment #34

bents75 says ...

"...defend the innocence of business as practiced by a politician whose investments and positions coincide."

First off, Al Gore isn't an elected official. That's the difference between him and both Bush and Sith Lord Cheney. Second, of course his positions would coincide with his investements, what the hell else would they be? Do you expect him to invest in something he doesn't believe in, or believe in something opposite of what he's invested in? That just doesn't make any sense.

And you're right Supertaster, he's not a marketer, although usually "duties" coincide with "needs", but he's also not a salesman. I haven't given Al Gore any of my money, I don't even know what he has investments in (i'm simply taking your word for that which is probably a mistake).

And lets say for the sake of argument you are correct, the amount of money and effort it will take to reverse current polution trends are so much greater than Al Gore could possibly have invested in - the man will probably not live to the see the day in which a majority live by his influence let alone reap some massive financial benefit.

And you're right, it usually is worth questioning someone's motives, but that also usually means you don't know the answer. Just because someone dumps capital into a cause which by its very nature, might increase, doesn't mean that was his goal. Lets play devil's advocate for a second and assume he wants to put some money out there to increase research and change - what do you want him to do, make donations to companies? Be realistic.

And "Indeed" - there's no point in debating it, it's called proven science. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges it. When an institution that didn't officially acknowledge the earth revolved around the sun until 1992 believes it, you're offiically behind the curve.

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I have no idea if Gore is an evil climate profiteer or not, but it is pretty funny to see the crowd who thinks every time Halliburton serves up an MRE to a soldier it's making evil obscene in-cahoots-with-Bush no blood for oil profits, suddenly defend the innocence of business as practiced by a politician whose investments and positions coincide."

I'm guessing because one politician's business connection wants us to keep being dependent on oil and endless war, while another one wants to leave us a good future and a strong economy.

Indeed: "The same research and data thats so flimsy that even the self appointed guru of the subject wont consider engaging in a debate with those who disagree because he's obviously worried about getting his preverbial ass handed to him?"

He's not engaging in a debate, because he answered all the arguments against global warming in his movie. Like evolution, just about every scientist not paid by corporations which like to pollute our air and water believes the science is real; so the data isn't flimsy, either. Also, there's no real point in debating when the South and Midwest's already had its second worst flood in history to the point that there's no clean drinking water. [Again.] And McCain and Schwarzenegger friggin' admit global warming is real, too. The only people who still disagree probably think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.

comment #36

bents75 says ...

"...and that the sun revolves around the earth."

Yeah, see, we're on the same page here.

It's like believing the moon is made out of cheese.

comment #37

Indeed says ...

We should believe in man made global warming because it was in a documentary that showed potential outcomes of what may or may not happen?

We should believe in man made global warming because career politicians have gotten behind it, considering they are always truthful, honest, and have our best interests in mind?

Wow. I would very much like to visit this world you guys are living in. I'll stick with reality and open-mindedness for now.

(And when I say open-mindedness, I do mean that I am willing to listen to any...and here is the key word...INTELLIGENT argument for man made global warming. No, the fact that there are floods and politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to win votes doesnt count. For every one of those lame "arguments" I can easily point to studies that show that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, and that the past few years has been mild when it comes to hurricane/major storm activity).

comment #38

Indeed says ...

Oh, and bents75...

I'm all for respecting someone's religion, but when youre getting your "factual" information from an organization that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old and that some guy walked out of the ground after being buried under hot sand for 3 days, I think it's safe to say you are the one who's behind the curve.

No wonder people refer to man made global warming as a religion. The followers are as blind as evangelical Christians.

comment #39

supertaster says ...

Indeed -- your points about remaining objective and cynical are good ones...these yahoos have a read a few articles (if that) and watched a documentary and now they're ready to declare something scientific "fact". It's about a 90% certainty according to leading scientists, which is good enough for me to buy it but with enough margin for error that counterarguments must be taken seriously....

...on a separate note, the catholic church doesnt teach that the earth is only a few thousand years old nor does it deny dinosaurs or evolution or any of that good stuff...

comment #40

Indeed says ...

Supertaster, "but with enough margin for error that counterarguments must be taken seriously" is pretty much all anybody with an opposing view is asking for.

I would strongly disagree with the 90% certainty suggestion, but then we would just be splitting hairs.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

Indeed: "We should believe in man made global warming because it was in a documentary that showed potential outcomes of what may or may not happen?"

We should believe in global warming, because we're seeing many of those outcomes happen as we speak.

"We should believe in man made global warming because career politicians have gotten behind it, considering they are always truthful, honest, and have our best interests in mind?"

Whether or not they have our best interests, they're still concerned about the next generation's best interests. But even if they didn't have our best interest, I'm not sure how less air pollution and a stable food and water supply are somehow a bad thing. No one questioned the science of Republican Theodore Roosevelt's argument for saving and preserving the environment; so I'm not sure why Gore is held under more scrutiny.

"And when I say open-mindedness, I do mean that I am willing to listen to any...and here is the key word...INTELLIGENT argument for man made global warming. No, the fact that there are floods and politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to win votes doesnt count. For every one of those lame "arguments" I can easily point to studies that show that the earth has been cooling for the past decade,"

And those studies clearly have no bearing on reality, which is why politicians are no longer taking them seriously.

"and that the past few years has been mild when it comes to hurricane/major storm activity"

Yes, we're getting more forest fires in exchange.

"I'm all for respecting someone's religion, but when youre getting your "factual" information from an organization that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old and that some guy walked out of the ground after being buried under hot sand for 3 days, I think it's safe to say you are the one who's behind the curve."

You're confusing his source for the one you use. The people bents and I follow use things like research and data. Not just random trends on a limited scale.

taster: "Indeed -- your points about remaining objective and cynical are good ones...these yahoos have a read a few articles (if that) and watched a documentary and now they're ready to declare something scientific "fact"."

Yes, it's dumb to trust people with experience and an education. What were we thinking? Let's have more Mike Browns in charge of our environmental policies!

"It's about a 90% certainty according to leading scientists, which is good enough for me to buy it but with enough margin for error that counterarguments must be taken seriously...."

Oh, and I still don't buy that gravity exists, either.

comment #42

MDOC says ...

You guys lose me when you site recent weather patterns and floods as proof of global warming.

comment #43

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

D.Z., you don't even get that the argument isn't whether global warming is happening, it's whether it's anthropogenic.

But your side is the side whose word must not be questioned on this subject. Yeah.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: We're also losing levees.

Mgmax: I think the fact that we're losing icecaps and seeing massive fires at rates not experienced in half a century would indicated it is anthropogenic.

comment #45

Indeed says ...

D.Z.: "I think the fact that we're losing icecaps and seeing massive fires at rates not experienced in half a century would indicated it is anthropogenic."

So, D.Z., what would be your explanation for the fires and loss of icecaps prior to 1958? Since, by your own admission, the earth experienced this kind of stuff more than 50 years ago.

comment #46

Josh says ...

Really? Gore endorsed Obama???

No way!

You mean he endorsed an actual Liberal????

Thank God for 24 hour news.

comment #47

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability clustering