While he laps-up the attention over the slideshow turned into "box office gold" -- anyone realize he did next to nothing (vs. what he's talking about), glossed over his White House years in 1 second (in the film), didn't push for Kyoto (accords done in '97, meaning Clinton/Gore punted on it, for 3 years!!), AND the Clinton/Gore team not only didn't follow-through on the CO2 front -- but 1) moved factories overseas with NAFTA, 2) brought 11-mpg mega-SUVs to soccer moms all across the USA (no truck-license required), and 3) actually eliminated Fed. gas standards that used to be required to improve for any auto sold in the USA (ask Michael Moore why he's silent about Al Gore!!).
2007-03-06
05:32:36
·
23 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
I'm saying this, because I watched "Conan" last night, with Al Gore guesting.. and you'd think he didn't RUN with Bubba in 1992 on this same one-trick pony issue... and did NOTHING over 8 years, but harm the environment? the real issue is POLLUTION vs. human effects like benzene/plastics = cancer. (ignored by Big Al). Global warming is real, but NOT caused by humans. 97% of CO2, even if you BELIEVE that nonsense is caused naturally by fires, volcanoes, etc. -- but, you'd never know if by Al's personal promo piece.
2007-03-06
05:39:41 ·
update #1
ALSO: know that our Congress is DEMOCRATIC right now... and would it be too much to ask for Al Gore to say ....PHONE Nancy Pelost etc. and ask for a meeting or to set this nonsense on some agenda for legislation or hearings on Global Warming etc. etc. -- if in fact THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT in reality, and Gore wasn't just looking for self-love on this topic? for those of you "blind as a bat apologists". Think for yourself.
2007-03-06
05:56:42 ·
update #2
He had eight years to solve global warming yet he wasted all that time inventing the internet.
2007-03-06 05:46:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by steve_spackle 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
Sure we can all say something about past political times. I believe voting is like picking the best of two evils, but has to be done none the less. We could talk about the financial situation when Clinton was in office. The government actually had a surplus in the budget, and was at an all time high. http://www.cbo.gov There is all of the proof you need. It will confirm it.
I am not saying democrats are better than republicans or vice versa, but you have to admit that it was a pretty good time for the country. Personally, I would like to see a republican/democrat hybrid. I have negative and positive thoughts about both parties. But you know one of them will get into office, and there will most likely never be an independent president/vice president.
2007-03-06 05:41:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pauly 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Everyone uses the term "under his watch" so I think it should be applied to the Clinton term as well. I don't care how much they claim they were helping the environment the fact is SUV's procreated during their watch.
I was/am a big fan of hybrid cars (as the first step in alternate fuel) and very few people realized what we lost with Bush's first energy package.
While congress is hyping all of us up to all the stuff they do for energy and the environment, I'll let you in on a secret that no one wants you to know....
Bush's first energy plan allowed for twice as much reimbursement for buying a hybrid car. That would have made the cost of a hybrid almost equal to gas guzzlers. It was defeated and a few years later a watered-down version was enacted.
Why don't you know about this?
Because the Democrats didn't want to lose more taxes (the incentive would be paid for by the government) and the Republicans wanted to give more tax cuts that were "obvious" to the people.
In this one act they have caused the hybrid incentive to be set back 10 years by experts estimates. That one act (of not passing Bush's first energy bill) has caused us to be a decade behind in energy and pollution.
You can thank your members in congress for that step at the next election.
All we needed was a few Democrats to vote outside their party. But as usual they were playing politics before fuel escalated and global warming was a more proven issue. So when your favorite Democrat stands up before you to tell you how much needs to be done for global warming don't hesitate to ask him how he voted on Bush's first energy bill and how they voted on his second energy bill... they ask them the "reason."
Not only could these credits have helped worldwide global warming but would have been a big boost to our auto industry as well. Congress first interest is themselves.
2007-03-06 05:53:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Raylene G. 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I remember that during his 8-years as Vice-President, the office of the Vice-President actually stayed within it's constitutional bounds. But yes, you are right, VPs like Cheney has given us so much more to remember.
At least during the Clinton-Gore years, you didn't have big energy companies writing legislation and policy in secret White House meetings.
And why would he push Kyoto? There was no hope of ever getting the US Congress to approve it, even Democrats were opposed to it over fears of effects on the job market.
And I'm not sure of how many factories Clinton-Gore personally moved overseas, didn't the big greedy corporations do that? And how does the North American Free Trade Agreement have anything to do with jobs going overseas anyway?
And who cares what Michael Moore says? He was no Clinton-Gore fan during the 1990's.
2007-03-06 05:52:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Raindog 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
As Pappyosha has pointed out here
the legislation that you are laying at Al Gore's door came from and was put into place by the then serving Republican majority in both the House and the Senate---and besides -- as Vice President (as you've so aptly put it )-- he WAS in a place that made him ineffectual in the outcome of such stuff
So what was it here--- was he the total ineffectual individual that you say he was -------OR------the reason for all this legislation on anti envoirnmental issue that you say he was-------He couldn't have possibly been BOTH NOW ---COULD HE ???
This is just another of the unending rewrites of history that simply amaze me to this day--- how people with so little grip on the truth can reconstruct things from the past to meet their present day view and expect that the general public is going to be as ignorant as they are about any true Facts at all !!!!
2007-03-06 05:50:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Al gore is an idiot he was the guy yelling about government spending and then it cam out that he was using air force two to do private gulf trips for him and his Buddy's an half a million a pop. This is also the guy who in a speech said that he created the intranet which we know he did not. also this is the guy that says that we need to conserve our natural resources and he has how many houses on CNN they said that just one of his houses uses twice in a month that an average American family uses in a whole year. this is the guy people should look up to he is without a doubt the biggest waste of space in the world.
2007-03-06 05:42:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by chris a 3
·
3⤊
3⤋
I remember when Al Gore was Vice-President, I think he did a pretty go job, better that what we have now. Did you know that Al Gore actually beat George Bush for the president, but it is the electorial college who decides who be president and not the people.
2007-03-06 05:44:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
Ah, those 8 grand years where we were respected world-wide because we were striving to be our best.
As to the record you cite, it recalls why liberals felt the dems were the same as the repubs and so many voted for nader (allowing bush to steal florida with the aid of harris' purge of tens of thousands of legal black voters from the florida voting rolls.) It also shows us that the incrementalism of the Clinton years was true realpolitik and what the republican party, as manifested after seized by the lying, thieving, torturing, mass murdering gangsters in the Bush crime family, offers is much more dangerous and disasterous for us and the whole world.
2007-03-06 05:38:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by cassandra 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
We know why michael moore is silent about Al Gore. Yes I remember Al Gore as the #2 guy, and that is why he did not get my vote.
2007-03-06 05:35:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Al Gore has been a defender of the enviroment for 40 years
Bush and the G O P have torn down most of the policys that protect the enviroment so big business can prosper at the cost of the health of the American public.
but spin it however you want the people know better
2007-03-06 05:37:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋