Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!

[bio-chem]

I hope you keep posting that. That post shows that there are those who don't support dropping the Mark77 firebomb on civilians.
:

would you kindly explain how supporting roadside bombs against our troops shows you dont support dropping a firebomb on civilians?


i dont support killing civilians either. i do however support out troops. i guess i see the line of combatant and civilian a little blurry when kids are holding machine guns and taught how to make bombs

 

[Big Smoothy]

would you kindly explain how supporting roadside bombs against our troops shows you dont support dropping a firebomb on civilians?

The U.S. "troops" are causing the civilian killings, Mark77 napalm firebombs that kill civilians, and the displacement of over 2 million Iraqi civilians. Iraqi engineers, doctors, and teachers have left the country. The few that remained have been killed in sectarian violence long ago. Iraq has been sent back several decades because of what the PNAC and PNAC puppets (troops) have done. 4.5 years: what has been accomplished? It's not about the troops, it's about political and sectarian. The U.S. troops have set up a massive Shiite block with Iran at the helm. Time is on the Shiites side. All they have to do is wait.

 

[bio-chem]

The U.S. "troops" are causing the civilian killings, Mark77 napalm firebombs that kill civilians, and the displacement of over 2 million Iraqi civilians. Iraqi engineers, doctors, and teachers have left the country. The few that remained have been killed in sectarian violence long ago. Iraq has been sent back several decades because of what the PNAC and PNAC puppets (troops) have done. 4.5 years: what has been accomplished? It's not about the troops, it's about political and sectarian. The U.S. troops have set up a massive Shiite block with Iran at the helm. Time is on the Shiites side. All they have to do is wait.

interesting read, but you didnt answer the question

 

[Decker]

....

WMD in iran and supporting terrorism in iraq are unsupported? they admit to uranium enrichment. thats not contested. enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear weapons. not contested. ive spoken to soldiers returned from iraq that say iran is supporting the insurgency over there. i wont contest that. not from several thousand miles away.

your points this day are without merrit. they are horrible in their inaccuracies and obviously coming from someone blinded from their own self image. debating with you this day has been painful in its exercise. remember how this started out as about al gore and the nobel peace prize. does al have any way of bringing peace to the middle east? he might actually deserve a medal for that

Iran has every right in the world to enrich uranium for domestic purposes.

You may not care for that, but tough.

So it is not surprising that Iran is enriching uranium.

Thank you for your anecdotal evidence about Iran arming Iraq. It's worthless.

 

[bio-chem]

Iran has every right in the world to enrich uranium for domestic purposes.

You may not care for that, but tough.

So it is not surprising that Iran is enriching uranium.

Thank you for your anecdotal evidence about Iran arming Iraq. It's worthless.

anecdotal? sure, false? you have evidence otherwise? and yea, i dont like iran enriching uranium. iran wants the bomb. you can hide behind the same arguement that irans president uses , but no one is buying it.

 

[Decker]

anecdotal? sure, false? you have evidence otherwise? and yea, i dont like iran enriching uranium. iran wants the bomb. you can hide behind the same arguement that irans president uses , but no one is buying it.

They have the right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. Now the West can use inspections and sanctions to try and keep the Iranians from secretly developing nuclear arms and it has done that. But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it won???t go back. It is not desirable or possible, from a political, economic or military standpoint, to attack every country that may have a program to develop a nuclear weapon. Otherwise we would have to bomb Israel and Korea tomorrow???Israel uses the same rationale and denials that Iran uses for nuclear development

If India and neighboring Pakistan can survive for 40 years with nuclear weapons and not provide them to terrorist orgs (the US has accused Pakistan of such), then I think Iran can be handled too. We haven???t attacked Pakistan yet.

An attack of Iran will further consolidate the sympathies of Muslim countries against the US. Russia, China and much of Europe will be against us. I would wager that the worldwide terrorism explosion b/c of the Iraq invasion would pale next to those resulting from attacking Iran.

The evidence that Iran is arming the troops may exist but now it is not conclusive. The weapons???EFPs???that allegedly only Iran could make and are turning up in Iraq has been offered as evidence that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgents. However, an EFP factory was found inside Iraq by the US military:

???The US military also issued a statement on Sunday calling the operation in Diwaniyah, dubbed Black Eagle, a "great success" so far. It said it detained 39 militiamen and killed an unspecified number. It also has uncovered "many large caches of weapons," including factories that make explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), devices that Washington accuses Tehran of supplying to Sadr's militia.??? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0410/p01s02-woiq.htm

The evidence is just not there.

 

[Decker]

Oh right, so Al Gore can use 20x more power than the average American because he purchases 'green power' and 'offsets' his carbon footprint. So only the wealthy have can have access to electricity? Nice.

Let's hear some more about that Green Power Gore uses, ok, Mr. "Again, you don't know but you sure shoot your mouth off like you do?"

From USA Today:




You're clueless and blinded because you're a lib like Gore. You love to act informed, but you're not, sorry to break it to you. You're being played for a fool by Al Gore. Send him some money to off-set your evil carbon output while you're at it, oh enlightened one.

No I don't know how ex-Vice Presidents usually fly, but I'd expect someone who's warning us we're doomed if we don't do something in 10 years to take drastic steps himself, including the oh-so-degrading switch from private jets to first class commercial. After all, the world is at stake, remember.

Yes, I'm attacking the "messenger" since this thread is about the "messenger" getting an award, not his message, genius.

You can start another thread about that if you so desire.

Thanks for responding. You are attempting to smear Al Gore, to show that he is duplicitous and a hypocrite re his environmental efforts. But you are incorrect:

???1) Gore???s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family???s carbon footprint ??? a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore???s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore???s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.??? http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

See, Gore is working within the current system to be more environmentally friendly.

The system can be changed, but at the moment, it???s the best we have.

The thread I started is about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize for his efforts in apprising the world of the current environmental situation. You can attack Gore if you like, but like so many who have: George Will, Rush Limbaugh, you are either using incorrect data or you are just parroting nonsense.

Gore was right about Iraq and he???s right about Global Warming.

The fact of the matter is that the worldwide scientific consensus re Global Warming is on Al Gore???s side and not yours.

 

[DOMS]

???1) Gore???s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

Are you certain about this one? Can you post a link to a credible source? I ask because I recently read an article (AP maybe?) where a reporter asked one of Gore's aides if his house was "green" in any way, to which the aide said no, but added that Gore had plans to make his mansion green.

I'll see if I can dig up a link.

Heh, I just realized that Gore has aides.

 

[DOMS]

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family???s carbon footprint ??? a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore???s office explains:

Could you explain to me what a "carbon offset" is? The link that you provided is nothing more than an opinion piece.

This sounds a lot like the idiocy that is the Kyoto protocol.

 

[Decker]

Could you explain to me what a "carbon offset" is? The link that you provided is nothing more than an opinion piece.

This sounds a lot like the idiocy that is the Kyoto protocol.

Gore has aides. See? This is how it starts. That is pretty funny though.

First, some background. The Gore/Energy gimmick was created by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. Sounds almost reverential???it???s just pointing out a blatant hypocrisy of Gore for all to see. But wait, what of this?:


??????Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
The (Tennessee) group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.???


Looks like somebody is creating and inflating numbers to make Gore look like a hypocrite. But the ???non-partisan??? Tennessee Bullshit Center for Policy Research would never do that???.it???s non-partisan.???


(Another manufactured attack against Al Gore.)


???Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said: ???Sometimes when people don???t like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it???s convenient to attack the messenger.??? Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.?????? http://www.ecorazzi.com/?p=1749

Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway. Gore purchases the bulk of his energy from here: http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/

And now to answer your question re carbon offset: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset Sometimes Wikipedia is pretty good. In short a CO is a credit that is purchased to fund some green energy activity to counter the use of carbon based energy. I do agree with you that it sounds a little implausible and I don???t like it personally. I think we can do better than trying to achieve ???carbon neutrality??? in this manner.


I would support a nationalized effort to develop an alternative fuel and put it on par with the 1960s space program.

 

[bio-chem]

They have the right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. Now the West can use inspections and sanctions to try and keep the Iranians from secretly developing nuclear arms and it has done that. But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it won???t go back. It is not desirable or possible, from a political, economic or military standpoint, to attack every country that may have a program to develop a nuclear weapon. Otherwise we would have to bomb Israel and Korea tomorrow???Israel uses the same rationale and denials that Iran uses for nuclear development

If India and neighboring Pakistan can survive for 40 years with nuclear weapons and not provide them to terrorist orgs (the US has accused Pakistan of such), then I think Iran can be handled too. We haven???t attacked Pakistan yet.

An attack of Iran will further consolidate the sympathies of Muslim countries against the US. Russia, China and much of Europe will be against us. I would wager that the worldwide terrorism explosion b/c of the Iraq invasion would pale next to those resulting from attacking Iran.

The evidence that Iran is arming the troops may exist but now it is not conclusive. The weapons???EFPs???that allegedly only Iran could make and are turning up in Iraq has been offered as evidence that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgents. However, an EFP factory was found inside Iraq by the US military:

???The US military also issued a statement on Sunday calling the operation in Diwaniyah, dubbed Black Eagle, a "great success" so far. It said it detained 39 militiamen and killed an unspecified number. It also has uncovered "many large caches of weapons," including factories that make explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), devices that Washington accuses Tehran of supplying to Sadr's militia.??? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0410/p01s02-woiq.htm

The evidence is just not there.

ive already said i dont think we are going to or should attack iran. so why all the "we shouldnt attack iran, rhetoric?" who on this forum is argueing that with you?

i hope israel already has the bomb. i could care less if they develop it. why? because they are not going to give it to our enemies. (they are even more likely to use it against israel). israel has shown amazing restraint in the past with how they have lived with their neighbors and they are not going to use it as anything but a deterent.

the evidence you have given of india and pakistan is funny. they have not both been nuclear countries for 40 years. and of the 2 we have reservations about the abilities of 1 of these states to keep nuclear arms off the open market. so if iran and korea both get the bomb is one or both of them going to supply it to the enemy?

the efp factory. guess there is still alot to be answered about that one. could iran have helped the insurgents build it? did they teach them how? is the design one that is irainian? for no better reason than i consider him a credible sourse, im going to continue to believe a cousin of mine who has served in iraq that told me iran is supplying help to the insurgents. but thats just me. i dont care if you take it second hand or not

 

[bio-chem]

They have the right to enrich uranium for domestic purposes. .

problem is, its not economically sound for them to do this. they have no great uranium reserves and the cost to develop the technology is astrinomical to the price of purchasing it openly on the market. when a country decides they want to build a nuclear power plant they go to a country that has been doing it for 50 years for the technological know how. they dont start from scratch.

simple econ 101 tells you if their intentions were simple domestic power production, they would be best served by not developing the technology.

 

[Decker]

ive already said i dont think we are going to or should attack iran. so why all the "we shouldnt attack iran, rhetoric?" who on this forum is argueing that with you?

i hope israel already has the bomb. i could care less if they develop it. why? because they are not going to give it to our enemies. (they are even more likely to use it against israel). israel has shown amazing restraint in the past with how they have lived with their neighbors and they are not going to use it as anything but a deterent.

the evidence you have given of india and pakistan is funny. they have not both been nuclear countries for 40 years. and of the 2 we have reservations about the abilities of 1 of these states to keep nuclear arms off the open market. so if iran and korea both get the bomb is one or both of them going to supply it to the enemy?

the efp factory. guess there is still alot to be answered about that one. could iran have helped the insurgents build it? did they teach them how? is the design one that is irainian? for no better reason than i consider him a credible sourse, im going to continue to believe a cousin of mine who has served in iraq that told me iran is supplying help to the insurgents. but thats just me. i dont care if you take it second hand or not

Al Gore was against the invasion and overthrow of Iraq b/c it would destabilize the middle east. It has. He was right again. Now the US is poised to attack Iran as another 'unique' threat much in the way Iraq was a unique WMD threat.

You seemed to agree with the threat posed by Iran by pointing out that Iran was enriching uranium. It looks, at the very least, like you are tacitly agreeing with how the Iranian matter is characterized by our government--namely, a threat. I disagree. I think this threat, for the most part, is being manufactured and Iran is playing ball. If Iran was such a threat, why did the US push Iran away from the negotiations table when it asked for US assurances that it would not attack after the Iraq war crime was completed back in 02-03? Instead Bush named Iran part of some asinine 'Axis of Evil'. Currently, Bush is asking Iran to cease something it has the legal right to do--enrich uranium.

It is a complex problem that would require more space to address adequately. I'll give you my idea, let the police and FBI do their jobs by kneecapping Al Qaeda where-ever possible. Strengthen our ports and borders. Keep working on improving those two aspects of battling terrorism.

It is not possible to attack every country that has nuclear ambitions and yellowcake.

I do understand your reservations about the Iraqi occupation. I was not denigrating your ideas.

You are correct, Pakistan had nuclear intentions dating back 40+ years and capabilities extending back about 30 years and fully functional bombs since about 10 years ago. So thanks for correcting that.

It's not the open market, it's the black market that we must be careful of. The knowledge of how to build a bomb is not a secret anymore--it hasn't been for years. The problem is engineering/manufacturing.

EFPs were created by the British, not the Iranians.

As for your cousin's information, I have no doubt that Iranian (black market) people are helping some of the Iraqi insurgents: some of the insurgents are Shia aligned with the Shia of Iran. That's a far cry from governmental support though.

 

[Decker]

problem is, its not economically sound for them to do this. they have no great uranium reserves and the cost to develop the technology is astrinomical to the price of purchasing it openly on the market. when a country decides they want to build a nuclear power plant they go to a country that has been doing it for 50 years for the technological know how. they dont start from scratch.

simple econ 101 tells you if their intentions were simple domestic power production, they would be best served by not developing the technology.

The Iranians hired the Russians to build their reactors.

Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation
Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation

 

[bio-chem]

The Iranians hired the Russians to build their reactors.

Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation
Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation

thanks for providing more proof of my point. the russians can also provide fuel at a cheaper cost as well. there is no benificial reason iran needs to develop the technology to enrich uranium as they are not the low cost provider.

 

[bio-chem]

Al Gore was against the invasion and overthrow of Iraq b/c it would destabilize the middle east. It has. He was right again. Now the US is poised to attack Iran as another 'unique' threat much in the way Iraq was a unique WMD threat.

You seemed to agree with the threat posed by Iran by pointing out that Iran was enriching uranium. It looks, at the very least, like you are tacitly agreeing with how the Iranian matter is characterized by our government--namely, a threat. I disagree. I think this threat, for the most part, is being manufactured and Iran is playing ball. If Iran was such a threat, why did the US push Iran away from the negotiations table when it asked for US assurances that it would not attack after the Iraq war crime was completed back in 02-03? Instead Bush named Iran part of some asinine 'Axis of Evil'. Currently, Bush is asking Iran to cease something it has the legal right to do--enrich uranium.

It is a complex problem that would require more space to address adequately. I'll give you my idea, let the police and FBI do their jobs by kneecapping Al Qaeda where-ever possible. Strengthen our ports and borders. Keep working on improving those two aspects of battling terrorism.

It is not possible to attack every country that has nuclear ambitions and yellowcake.

I do understand your reservations about the Iraqi occupation. I was not denigrating your ideas.

You are correct, Pakistan had nuclear intentions dating back 40+ years and capabilities extending back about 30 years and fully functional bombs since about 10 years ago. So thanks for correcting that.

It's not the open market, it's the black market that we must be careful of. The knowledge of how to build a bomb is not a secret anymore--it hasn't been for years. The problem is engineering/manufacturing.

EFPs were created by the British, not the Iranians.

As for your cousin's information, I have no doubt that Iranian (black market) people are helping some of the Iraqi insurgents: some of the insurgents are Shia aligned with the Shia of Iran. That's a far cry from governmental support though.

im not sure we are on the same wavelength. your last 2 posts are confusing the hell out of me by what your argueing. so lets re-cap a bit.

i think iran is led by an evil government that has bad intentions for US and Israels interests in the middle east. i dont think at this time we are going to or need to attack them. i also dont think our leaders need to 'take it off the table out of hand' just knowing we could attack provides some deterent. i dont trust irans nuclear ambitions as i see no benificial reason for them to develop nuclear technology.

while i dont like the handling of the iraq war, i support the troops and i feel we need to see it through in an effort to protect against further destabalization of the area. it is our mess and we need to clean it up.

al gore is a retard

that is all

 

[brogers]

If Gore did the "green power" switch, he did so after he got caught saying he had it, when he in fact did not, and was using 20x more than average Joe. Thus, it is meaningless. "Oh I signed up for green power, so I can use as much as I want!" "No you didn't...." "I just did 30 seconds ago you're a liar!"

Additionally, his "carbon-offset" scam is him buying stock in an investment firm he co-founded. You should offset your carbon and send Al's some money as well.

Not to mention the whole "carbon-offset" thing is about as stupid as paying someone else to go on a diet for you. I'll pay you 10 bucks, you don't eat any junk, and in the mean time I'll pig out on Snickers bars. Scam.

 

[DOMS]

Not to mention the whole "carbon-offset" thing is about as stupid as paying someone else to go on a diet for you. I'll pay you 10 bucks, you don't eat any junk, and in the mean time I'll pig out on Snickers bars. Scam.

You just described the Kyoto Protocol.

 

[Decker]

thanks for providing more proof of my point. the russians can also provide fuel at a cheaper cost as well. there is no benificial reason iran needs to develop the technology to enrich uranium as they are not the low cost provider.

It really doesn't matter how you view the cost/benefit of Iran's pursuit of nuclear power. They have the legal right to do that. End of story.

 

[Decker]

im not sure we are on the same wavelength. your last 2 posts are confusing the hell out of me by what your argueing. so lets re-cap a bit.

i think iran is led by an evil government that has bad intentions for US and Israels interests in the middle east. i dont think at this time we are going to or need to attack them. i also dont think our leaders need to 'take it off the table out of hand' just knowing we could attack provides some deterent. i dont trust irans nuclear ambitions as i see no benificial reason for them to develop nuclear technology.

while i dont like the handling of the iraq war, i support the troops and i feel we need to see it through in an effort to protect against further destabalization of the area. it is our mess and we need to clean it up.

al gore is a retard

that is all

You think that "Iran is evil and has bad intentions for US..." and "...see no benficial reason for them to develop nuclear technology."

You characterize Iran as evil and then prohibit Iran's lawful development of nuclear technology.

Can you see why I might interpret your views as consistent with the Bush Administration's views?

It doesn't matter what you think or what Bush thinks re Iran's lawful enrichment of uranium for domestic purposes. And outside of perpetrating another war crime, there is nothing the US can do about it.

As for Iraq, it is a civil war which the US is officiating. I don't support the troops b/c that would imply that I agree with their mission--I do not. I see nothing wrong with a precipitous phased withdrawal from the area.

Al Gore was right about Bush's folly of invading and occupying Iraq...not to mention the ruinous tax cuts, immigration fiasco....

If Gore's a retard, what does that make your boy Bush? And he is your boy if you voted for him.

 

[Decker]

If Gore did the "green power" switch, he did so after he got caught saying he had it, when he in fact did not, and was using 20x more than average Joe. Thus, it is meaningless. "Oh I signed up for green power, so I can use as much as I want!" "No you didn't...." "I just did 30 seconds ago you're a liar!"

Additionally, his "carbon-offset" scam is him buying stock in an investment firm he co-founded. You should offset your carbon and send Al's some money as well.

Not to mention the whole "carbon-offset" thing is about as stupid as paying someone else to go on a diet for you. I'll pay you 10 bucks, you don't eat any junk, and in the mean time I'll pig out on Snickers bars. Scam.

Is there no piece of propaganda re Gore that you won't take to heart? Do you even research, hell, even read these hit pieces on Gore? The numbers re Gore's energy use have been inflated by the rightwing think tank that started this character assassination. Gore has been making his home environmentally friendly since he moved into it back in 2002. His own neighbors stood in the way some of his changes, especially solar power. Gore's solar plans thwarted by upscale neighborhood's rules - USATODAY.com

As for the "carbon-offset" scam, you just love that don't you? I mean it shows Gore is a hypocrite again. But it is not true:


Here are the facts:

Gore's London-based employee-owned company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide (CO2) "offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell.​

GIM is strictly an investment firm that considers how eco-friendly corporations are in assessing long-term sustainability, Campbell told Cybercast News Service by phone from London. Gore's Company Says He's Not Profiting from 'Carbon Offsets' -- 03/07/2007​

Critics, like yourself, have no answers for Gore???s scientific arguments so you've decided to smear him personally.​

 

[bio-chem]

It really doesn't matter how you view the cost/benefit of Iran's pursuit of nuclear power. They have the legal right to do that. End of story.

bull shit. if a government that is hostile to this people or its allies has bad intentions in gaining horrific weaponry i want my government to do something about it.

can you think of one benifit to the government or people of iran that does not include nuclear weaponry, of there desire to enrich uranium?

 

[brogers]

Is there no piece of propaganda re Gore that you won't take to heart? Do you even research, hell, even read these hit pieces on Gore? The numbers re Gore's energy use have been inflated by the rightwing think tank that started this character assassination. Gore has been making his home environmentally friendly since he moved into it back in 2002. His own neighbors stood in the way some of his changes, especially solar power. Gore's solar plans thwarted by upscale neighborhood's rules - USATODAY.com

As for the "carbon-offset" scam, you just love that don't you? I mean it shows Gore is a hypocrite again. But it is not true:



Here are the facts:

Gore's London-based employee-owned company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide (CO2) "offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell.​

GIM is strictly an investment firm that considers how eco-friendly corporations are in assessing long-term sustainability, Campbell told Cybercast News Service by phone from London. Gore's Company Says He's Not Profiting from 'Carbon Offsets' -- 03/07/2007​

Critics, like yourself, have no answers for Gore???s scientific arguments so you've decided to smear him personally.​

When his home energy use came out, his aide said he had not subscribed to any green power switch, but was "looking into it." He's a liar and a hypocrite on this. Period. The fact that he's trying to "make his mansion environmentally friendly" is meaningless, reality is what matters. He said he was buying green power, he wasn't. I really don't care about the fact that he wanted to put some solar panels on his house which would generate a pittance of electricity or about his toxic CF bulbs he put in. Not impressed. I have no problem with his lifestyle at all, so long as he doesn't tell me, from his mansion after getting off his private jet that I shouldn't travel, shouldn't use so much energy in my home, etc.

During the same time all this crap was going the claim was made that he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in sustainable and renewable technologies, AKA HIS OWN COMPANY. Whether or not they sell something specifically called a "carbon-offset" doesn't matter. Gore has claimed that by investing in said technologies (through his own company) he is offsetting his footprint.

Yes I will continue to attack the hypocritical messenger who's got a huge financial reward if the world buys his scam, this thread is titled AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Duh??

 

[bio-chem]

You think that "Iran is evil and has bad intentions for US..." and "...see no benficial reason for them to develop nuclear technology."

You characterize Iran as evil and then prohibit Iran's lawful development of nuclear technology.

Can you see why I might interpret your views as consistent with the Bush Administration's views?

It doesn't matter what you think or what Bush thinks re Iran's lawful enrichment of uranium for domestic purposes. And outside of perpetrating another war crime, there is nothing the US can do about it.

As for Iraq, it is a civil war which the US is officiating. I don't support the troops b/c that would imply that I agree with their mission--I do not. I see nothing wrong with a precipitous phased withdrawal from the area.

Al Gore was right about Bush's folly of invading and occupying Iraq...not to mention the ruinous tax cuts, immigration fiasco....

If Gore's a retard, what does that make your boy Bush? And he is your boy if you voted for him.

your going to continue down the line of lawful pursuit of enriched uranium for domestic purchases? if the iranian leader has such noble intentions as nuclear power to support the growth of his country and help his people, why is he spending so much money on enriching uranium when he will never be able to provide it cheaper than he can get it elsewhere? iran has no signifigant uranium deposits. nor do they have uranium mines. they are not developing a natural resourse here. THEY DO NOT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS like domestic purposes crap. keep telling yourself that.

i dont believe the US or bush has committed a war crime. to say so is just trying to draw attention to yourself or your views. its a publicity stunt.

immigration was/will be a problem long before and long after bush. he has little to do with the situation in my opinion. i support tax cuts always. and while al gore is a retard, that makes president bush just that. the president of the united states. al gore is nothing more than an also ran. you might as well be talking about michael dukakis.

 

[DOMS]

Well said.

When his home energy use came out, his aide said he had not subscribed to any green power switch, but was "looking into it." He's a liar and a hypocrite on this. Period. The fact that he's trying to "make his mansion environmentally friendly" is meaningless, reality is what matters. He said he was buying green power, he wasn't. I really don't care about the fact that he wanted to put some solar panels on his house which would generate a pittance of electricity or about his toxic CF bulbs he put in. Not impressed. I have no problem with his lifestyle at all, so long as he doesn't tell me, from his mansion after getting off his private jet that I shouldn't travel, shouldn't use so much energy in my home, etc.

During the same time all this crap was going the claim was made that he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in sustainable and renewable technologies, AKA HIS OWN COMPANY. Whether or not they sell something specifically called a "carbon-offset" doesn't matter. Gore has claimed that by investing in said technologies (through his own company) he is offsetting his footprint.

Yes I will continue to attack the hypocritical messenger who's got a huge financial reward if the world buys his scam, this thread is titled AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Duh??

 

[Decker]

When his home energy use came out, his aide said he had not subscribed to any green power switch, but was "looking into it." He's a liar and a hypocrite on this. Period. The fact that he's trying to "make his mansion environmentally friendly" is meaningless, reality is what matters. He said he was buying green power, he wasn't. I really don't care about the fact that he wanted to put some solar panels on his house which would generate a pittance of electricity or about his toxic CF bulbs he put in. Not impressed. I have no problem with his lifestyle at all, so long as he doesn't tell me, from his mansion after getting off his private jet that I shouldn't travel, shouldn't use so much energy in my home, etc.

During the same time all this crap was going the claim was made that he offsets his carbon footprint by investing in sustainable and renewable technologies, AKA HIS OWN COMPANY. Whether or not they sell something specifically called a "carbon-offset" doesn't matter. Gore has claimed that by investing in said technologies (through his own company) he is offsetting his footprint.

Yes I will continue to attack the hypocritical messenger who's got a huge financial reward if the world buys his scam, this thread is titled AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Duh??

I believe you are getting your "Gore Lied" information from a Peter Schweitzer article that's been debunked. In that article, Schweitzer lied about alleged royalties Gore received from a zinc mine, Gore's alleged ownership of Occidental Petroleum stock, and that Gore does not pay for his carbon offset credits.
Why should I believe a hearsay quote from some person in Gore's office.

The story was so bad that the USA today had to run a retraction.

Your source is garbage.

 

[Decker]

bull shit. if a government that is hostile to this people or its allies has bad intentions in gaining horrific weaponry i want my government to do something about it.

can you think of one benifit to the government or people of iran that does not include nuclear weaponry, of there desire to enrich uranium?

We are doing something about it. The IAEA is engaging in inspections in Iran and they are finding no evidence of enrichment for anything other than domestic purposes.

The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html

So what do we really have here?:

1. Allegations of Iran's WMDs refuted by inspectors on the ground

2. Allegations that Iran is aiding and abetting our enemy with no supporting evidence

Sound familiar?

 

[Decker]

your going to continue down the line of lawful pursuit of enriched uranium for domestic purchases? if the iranian leader has such noble intentions as nuclear power to support the growth of his country and help his people, why is he spending so much money on enriching uranium when he will never be able to provide it cheaper than he can get it elsewhere? iran has no signifigant uranium deposits. nor do they have uranium mines. they are not developing a natural resourse here. THEY DO NOT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS like domestic purposes crap. keep telling yourself that.

i dont believe the US or bush has committed a war crime. to say so is just trying to draw attention to yourself or your views. its a publicity stunt.

immigration was/will be a problem long before and long after bush. he has little to do with the situation in my opinion. i support tax cuts always. and while al gore is a retard, that makes president bush just that. the president of the united states. al gore is nothing more than an also ran. you might as well be talking about michael dukakis.

The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html


Iraq: The US asks to enforce Res 1441 compelling Iraq to permit inspections; It does; Bush orders an attack without receiving permission from the UN Security Council as required under Res 1441.

That is an unprovoked attack on Iraq in violation of UN Resolution 1441--A war crime or crime against the Peace.

 

[bio-chem]

The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html


Iraq: The US asks to enforce Res 1441 compelling Iraq to permit inspections; It does; Bush orders an attack without receiving permission from the UN Security Council as required under Res 1441.

That is an unprovoked attack on Iraq in violation of UN Resolution 1441--A war crime or crime against the Peace.

no need to go into the absurdity of the UN process. i dont want our president going to anyone but congress before we go to war. iraqs defiance over allowing security inspectors for the entire clinton administration combined with there constant attempt to shoot down our pilots in the no-fly zone does not constitute unprovoked. stop trying to paint little bitty iraq with harmless leader saddam as just some country we were trying to bully around. everyone on this forum knows better

 

[bio-chem]

The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons. "The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, says it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html

.

maybe because uranium enrichment for weapons and power is the exact same thing up until it gets to 5%. something not easy to do. do we really need to go into the "declared nuclear material" topic?