English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush is accused of leading us into war out of fear; Al Gore is being accused of using fear for global warming. Is there a difference?

2007-03-21 06:37:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

It is an excellent point I hadn't considered. Yes - I would agree with you that both prey on fear of things the general public does not understand. Global Warming is inherently hard to understand and both the deniers and the proponents leave out evidence that does not support their view.

With Iraq - not a single Iraqi was involved with 9-11 and yet somehow we're fighting the "war on terror" in Iraq. In polls most Americans think Iraq was responsible for 9-11. So Bush preys on our collective stupidity to further his agenda.

2007-03-21 06:43:51 · answer #1 · answered by HomeSweetSiliconValley 4 · 0 0

Well lets see...Al Gore is trying to protect the planet by showing us some information and getting us to recycle and use less water, thing captain planet would want us to do.

Bush on the other hand is sending people over seas for weapons of mass destruction, oh wait no weapons were found, my bad...he has troops over there to protect the people from the government there, oh wait Sudan Hussain is long dead now...hmm...why are the troops over there dieing everyday?

I would say that the diffrence for Bush is...lives are being lost and families are being devistated...for Gore, well all he did was make a movie, a kinda boring movie at that.

2007-03-21 13:45:49 · answer #2 · answered by darkurax 2 · 0 0

One word EVIDENCE. Al Gore has literally hundreds if not thousands of academicly peer reviewed articles and books that argue that humans are causing Global Warming. While you would be extremely hard pressed to find an actual Phd not on an industry pay roll who believes Global Warming is not natural.

Bush admits he makes decisions based on his "gut" without information. See the diference? Faith is not evidence.

2007-03-21 13:43:13 · answer #3 · answered by Wyleeguy 3 · 1 1

Well look at it this way:

When/(If) everyone believes Bush the US sends thousands of troops to Iraq and many casualties exist for a war many more do not believe should have ever started to begin with.

(If) everyone believes Gore people start conserving more energy, companies emit less pollution and overall try to help the environment.


Not the same thing in my eyes.

2007-03-21 13:43:31 · answer #4 · answered by kingmustang 2 · 0 0

of course there's a difference. what bush is doing is killing people. what al gore is doing is saving people and the earth. al gore has proof and statistics to back him up, bush has his 'gut feelings' and oil strategies. if al gore is wrong, then the earth still ends up being here, and people survive. if bush is wrong, hundreds of thousands are dead, and we have nothing but blood on our hands to show for it.

2007-03-21 13:43:18 · answer #5 · answered by wellie danger 2 · 0 1

Support for global warming saves lives. War takes lives. I would say there is quite a difference.

2007-03-21 13:40:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

using fear for global warming? That doesn't make sense, and the reason why is because recognizing global warming does NOTHING to hurt the country, The war in Iraq, with our tax dollars and lives does. is he using fear tactice to GET HIS POINT ACROSS? Absolutely...this admin has 0roven it's effectiveness. There is no acocunting for stupid people

2007-03-21 13:40:42 · answer #7 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2 3

Well, if we listen to Al Gore, we can all save money on our energy costs in the long run. When we listened to George Bush....PEOPLE DIED AND WE WASTED 700 BILLION DOLLARS.

So, no. No difference at all.

2007-03-21 13:43:05 · answer #8 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 1 1

At least he has proposed some solutions to it, unlike the war in Iraq.

To ph - one of the chief mathematicians who got us to the moon in the 60's failed a basic college math course as well.

2007-03-21 13:41:00 · answer #9 · answered by It's Me 5 · 1 1

Yes.

Al Gore is no longer an elected official, so he cannot order or compel anyone to do what he suggests. If people don't agree, they don't have to listen.

Bush is an elected official, and can order hundreds of thousands of people to do what he wants done, whether they agree or not.

2007-03-21 13:40:43 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5 1

fedest.com, questions and answers