2006-07-11
00:43:05
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Although it's got NOTHING to do with the question I asked, people still seem to be banging on about ol' Dubya Bush.
May I point out that he is NOT the elected president of the states. Al Gore is. W's political machine changed the outcome of the vote (as well as changing a bunch of laws to enable them to do this), making sure that almost NOBODY in the state of Florida got to vote, or if they did get to vote, that their vote wasn't counted.
Also, they allowed out-of-country votes (i.e., soldiers fighting abroad) to be allowed even though they were signed, witnessed and date-stamped AFTER election day.
2006-07-11
01:10:14 ·
update #1
Jar Jar.. that thing is so annoying.
2006-07-11 00:46:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL
Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.
Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.
Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!
Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.
So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.
Joe...
KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.
2006-07-12 19:04:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
1)Osama Bin Laden
2)Saddam Hussein
3)Jar-Jar Binks
2006-07-11 07:46:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jessica 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Prez Georgie Bush
2006-07-11 07:46:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by KathyB 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Osama Bin Laden.
And to all of those that hate George W. Bush, you really need to at least try to respect your president. You don't have to like him and you certainly do not have to agree with him. But hating him for something he's done, especially if it has not directly affected you, is just un-american....but that's my opinion.
Just my two cents.
2006-07-11 07:47:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by casey_leftwich 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't "hate" anyone. But Osama must be loving hiding out in the rocks and caves. If he wanted to be a true martyr, he'd show his rip van winkle bearded self and stand up for what he believes in (albeit twisted and evil).
2006-07-11 07:53:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Inner Light 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
George DUBYA Bush
2006-07-11 07:46:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by dot_216 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm rather fond of Jar-Jar :-) The rest I can live without.
2006-07-11 08:46:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by turnerzgirl101 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I tend to agree with casey_leftwich. Fair play, says it all!
2006-07-11 08:06:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
casey_leftwich, RESPECT IS EARNT not GIVEN
2006-07-11 07:51:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋