2007-03-04 01:48:46 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They're enviro-terrorists. They use threats of global warming to scare the public and further their own agendas.
Everyone has an agenda; remember that.
2007-03-04 02:04:07 · answer #1 · answered by Alex C 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. It's politics. And they'll all have some sort of excuse. Gore already protested "But I work from home!" As if that makes it okay that he spends $30,000 on electricity and natural gas per year for his personal home utilities, while raking it the bucks for his movie & speaking engagements about reducing the use of carbon fuels. What a hypocrite.
Not to mention the "Gulfstream Liberals," eco-hypocrites who fly their personal jets around the country, while at the same time criticizing SUV drivers and calling them "criminals." What's their excuse?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000399.htm
And as for Al and his carbon footprint, he supposedly purchases "carbon offsets" to make up for his extravagant lifestyle. Carbon offsets are comparable to the practice of purchasing "Indulgences" during the Middle Ages, where people with money could purchase forgiveness for their sins (instead of actually repenting and not sinning anymore). So it's wonderful that he plants trees. That doesn't make up for what he's doing to the environment.
By the way, the President and Vice President fly on Air Force 1 & 2 for security reasons according to the Secret Service Protocol. It applies to all sitting presidents and vice presidents.
2007-03-04 01:53:42 · answer #2 · answered by Bad Kitty! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nancy Pelosi didn't ask for the jumbo jet. She asked for a plane that wouldn't have to stop for refueling before it got to California, her home state. She is 3rd in line to be president and must have access to protection. It is her right and her responsibility in her position. Hastert had the same benefit its just that Pelosi lives clear across the country.
People who can afford to pay the bill for home heating don't tend to conserve in that area as well. Of course, if you have a large home, other than closing half of it off, its pretty hard to keep the bill down anyway. It costs well over $200 a month to heat a home with less than 1000 square feet even with energy conserving windows, good insulation, and closing off a room or two, etc.
It is my understanding Al Gore is now installing solar panels. Its nice when someone actually responds to criticism with a workable plan, isn't it? Wish we could see more of that in our government.
2007-03-04 02:30:23 · answer #3 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
it fairly is a bull$hit thank you to assert you're doing something for the ecosystem. basically Al Gore varieties could have you ever suspect in any different case on a similar time as he sucks down electricity at his mansion at a cost of 10x that of a typical american enjoyed ones on a consistent with sq. foot foundation.. (OOOH< in spite of the undeniable fact that it incredibly is okay because of the fact he buys offsets....nicely he buys them by way of his very own organisation). this is the deal, you're fairly asserting I incredibly have adequate disposeable income to pay somebody else to guard capability on a similar time as I proceed to consume at a typical or severe fee. the subsequent Webster dictionary could have carbon offset shoppers indexed decrease than the be conscious hypocrite. If everybody gave me an offset as a modern, i'd be quite disenchanted via the thought. Sorry, I basically approximately forgot to show that it fairly is amazingly possibly a rip-off considering the fact which you haven't any longer have been given any evidence that the acquisition of mentioned "offsets" will bring about everybody keeping capability on behalf of the "offset". Like one among the different solutions mentioned, the guy or entity it incredibly is meant to make themselves extra efficent would desire to easily be wasteful someplace else to "offset your offset".
2016-12-14 10:19:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats have tried throughout time to create or invent an issue that they alone will cure because they claim they are the only party that gives a dam.n.
It was like Democratic President Johnson declaring a "War on Poverty" and in reality it was found to increase American poverty.
Ha.
2007-03-04 02:00:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
But Al pays money to a company that plants trees and invests in renewable energy to offset his carbon footprint....
Please.
When I want a green opinion, I go the folks at the Path to Freedom Project, or the guys at Backwoods Home. I don't listen to people who only pander to the frightened masses.
2007-03-04 01:54:15 · answer #6 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
al gore actually leaves a negative carbon footprint (sorry if this is over your head).
pelosi's jet is big, but where is the conservative outrage over airforce one and airforce 2 - both 747's that are at the beck and call of the president and vice president so they can fly around the nation making campaign speeches in favor of republican candidates at the taxpayers expense.
i see plenty out there to be outraged about, but from you i see a rather selective version of piety.
frankly, your blatant partisan rubbish is why people simply never believe anything politicians or their pundits ever have to say.
this board is for real people, not political parasites - piss off!
2007-03-04 01:55:26 · answer #7 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You forgot the "Goreplex" with the massive heating swimming pool house. They are all hypocrites.
2007-03-04 01:52:24 · answer #8 · answered by david m 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
And Kennedy opposing WINDMILLS.
They talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk.
2007-03-04 02:02:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a scientist or anything, but I would have to say NO.
2007-03-04 02:14:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋