Impeach Bush!

The basic problem here is that once the Gore-bashers and Naysayers are forced to acknowledge beyond a doubt that scientists are correct about Global Warming, it will be too late to practice anything Gore is advocating and even extreme measures won't help. "I told you so" will be of little consolation.

 

I don't think you give rightards credit where due, Godiva; and underestimate their hyporcrisy and self-deception.

They will vehemently argue that the GOP was at the *forefront* of the war on GW, and trot out the shrub's house, one million dollar research budget, hydrogen, the summit chaired by Inhofe, ethanol and 'liquid coal' as proof positive they saved the planet.

You say it was distributed wind, electric transport, and solar ? Liberal lies, spread by Gore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 3 2007, 08:29 AM) [snapback]506292[/snapback]</div>

Surround yourself with enough scientists and professors and maybe you'll understand why I put much more stoc k in what they say that that of the average politician or religious preacher. I have discussions at least 3 times a week with people of high acedemic measure and I can tell you truthfully that they do not like to bandwagon hop or spout opinions as if they were fact. We regularly catch ourselves before presenting opnions as fact.

Case example:

Yesterday a few of us went to see The 11th Hour and afterwards our first order of business was to discuss apparent questionable content contained in the movie. Then we set to looking us data to either falsify or verify the questionable material. My non-scientist friend that came to watch the movie with us thought that our concern was not important because the questionable content could be good to scare people into making changes. We had to explain to her that scientists generally don't like to work that way. We do not like to push an idea that exagerates data. I'm sure there are scientists who will behave like this but most I know do not, they former we call biostitutes. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 3 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]506316[/snapback]</div>

Your right, it is the perfect issue for the fearmongers to push their agenda. WE CAN'T WAIT TO DO A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE SOLUTIONS, WE JUST HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!! ANYTHING!! ANYTHING A LIBERAL SAYS IS GOOD, ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE SAYS IS BAD!!!!!

 

So much ignorance.....

The cost to benefit analysis has been done in many sectors and is exactly why cities and corporations are already taking action. Go educate youselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 3 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]506392[/snapback]</div>

or maybe thats why they aren't taking action.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 3 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]506429[/snapback]</div>

Who is not taking action? The ones holding up the show are the ones who stand to continue making recod profits on dwindling resources and those who have their campaign fees paid for by said corporations. We can lump corrupt city officials and dictators in this group as well. Anyone who see the outcome of the cost to benefit analysis and thinks that continuing with business as usual must have forgotten to add natural and human capital into the equation before hitting the = key.

I've suggested this many times before. If you want to see what is being done around the world in a single publication go read State of the World 2005, 2006, and 2007. While these books are the tip of the iceberg, the do give a nice synopsis of progress in the world. If you would like other sources I'd be happy to point you to them.

 

05,

For just one example, google property insurance along the eastern cost from MA to Fl

 

I don't like Gore. But the truth of his message on global warming is not diminished by his character as a person or as a politician. If all the mud that folks like Kow are slinging at him is true, it does not change the fact that his message also is true.

What we have here is a very old tactic by conservatives: When they cannot dispute the message, they sling mud at the messenger. They did it to Martin Luther King: When segregation was the law of the land, when lynchings were rampant, when people were barred from lunch counters, and public drinking fountains, and were denied decent jobs for no other reason than the color of their skin, when little black children were denied a proper education, the conservatives, who wanted to maintain segretation and racism, attacked Martin Luther King's character.

Now they're attacking Gore's character. And I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about Gore's character. After all, he's a politician.

BUT GORE'S CHARACTER IS NOT THE ISSUE!!! The issue is that our selfish waste of limited resources is changing the climate in ways that will have disastrous consequences in decades to come. Big corporations and the politicians they own want to continue this irresponsible waste. And (to my amazement) there are people so dedicated to the neo-con ideology that they shut their eyes to the evidence, even though their own children will pay the price for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 3 2007, 07:32 PM) [snapback]506513[/snapback]</div>

from Wikipedia...

George Corley Wallace Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998), was a United States politician who was elected Governor of Alabama as a Democrat four times (1962, 1970, 1974 and 1982) and ran for US President four times, running as a Democrat in 1964, 1972, and 1976, and as the American Independent Party candidate in 1968. He is best known for his pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period, which he modified after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, arguing that it was better for him to be governor while the schools were being desegregated than for someone else. Wallace was so adamant in his belief in segregation that he opposed a federal mandate in 1963 to allow African-Americans to attend school with Caucasians

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 3 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]506545[/snapback]</div>

Alabama. That's in the south...right.

Anyone care to enlighten me to the definition of a "Southern Democrat"?

Southern Democrat.

Oh yeah. And George Wallace was such a mainstream representative of the Democratic Party that he clearly and easily won the Democratic nomination for President. Uh.....right?

Another example of what Daniel said. see above.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 2 2007, 07:46 AM) [snapback]433835[/snapback]</div>

So you're holding Bush up as a green icon because he has a green house, and Gore as a hypocrite because the home his family has lived in for generations and was built long before energy efficiency became an issue, uses too much energy and is not yet fully green.

I wonder what the net reduction of greenhouse gases will eventually add up to as a result of Al Gore's advocacy versus the the amount of those same gases that have and will continue to result from shipping how many hundreds of thousands of tons of gas belching tanks, planes, humvees, etc to Iraq and returning the same back to the US. Add to it the environmental damage done by thousands of bombs, grenades, bullets, the total waste of resources going into rebuilding and this becomes a truly ridiculous topic from the outset.

Gore may have been slow to begin greening his house. Bush is environmental Armageddon in human form.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 3 2007, 08:42 PM) [snapback]506555[/snapback]</div>

So even though they run as democrats they really aren't democrats if they don't agree with what you think a democrat should be. So again, liberal good, everyone else bad. simplistic, black and white view of the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 3 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]506560[/snapback]</div>

The problem is viewing things as democrat or republican. People need to stop doing that. You included. The majority of terrible global issues we face have nothing to do with political parties.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 3 2007, 06:27 PM) [snapback]506545[/snapback]</div>

You make my point: The U.S. political system is rotten to the core.

The Democratic Party began as an unholy alliance between northern liberals and southern racists, in opposition to the Republicans, who, while supporting Slavery in the old south, opposed its expansion into the territories. They were not against slavery, and they were not in favor of rights for African-Americans. Rather they wanted to preserve the territories for free white labor rather than plantation-style production using slaves. The Democrats wanted slave-owners to be allowed to take their slaves into the territories.

In the 60's, the Democratic Party divided internally between the segregationist southern Democrats, and the liberal northern Democrats, with the Republicans pretty much on the side lines. Kennedy dragged his feet on civil rights as much as he could, and it was not until LBJ that civil rights laws were passed. After the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, the Republicans managed to displace the Democrats as the party of racism in the South. Southern racists felt let down by the Democrats, who they had supported since before the Civil War, and with the coming of Ronald Reagan the Republicans owned the southern racist vote, while the newly-enfranchised black voters were left with the party that had slowly, reluctantly, and very late, supported their rights.

There is very little difference between the two parties, both utterly corrupt, both profoundly racist, both committed to support of corporate control of government. Both parties allow corporate lobbyists to write the laws and regulations that govern business. The main difference between them is that the Republicans have sold their soul to the religious bigots who want to establish conservative Christianity as the official state religion, and who don't care if the resources of the country are squandered, as long as they can force children to say prayers in school and deprive women of their reproductive rights.

George Wallace was an example of what's worst in America. George Bush is another. Both of them opportunistic criminals who will sell their own country down the river if they see political advantage in it. An example of how little difference there is between the two major parties.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 3 2007, 11:51 PM) [snapback]506631[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for that post. My point exactly. Politician is a politician. Wallace was just a little more open than most. You have heard the saying that if a person want's to be President we probably shouldn't let them?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 4 2007, 06:33 AM) [snapback]506728[/snapback]</div>

That's Douglas Adams, from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I agree 100%, which is why I advocate eliminating elections entirely and filling all elective offices by a draft lottery. Every person who is eligible for a given office by age, residence, and citizenship, gets his/her name in a computerized hat, and if your name comes up you're it. It would really be much more democratic than the present system, and we'd have far fewer criminal psychopaths in office.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 4 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]507039[/snapback]</div>

Aaamen, Daniel! Say what you will about whatever frightening disadvantages a government of draftees might entail, NOTHING is as terrifying as what we've got now.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA