ikol

Huh?

No, him being wrong is a separate, independent point. He thinks he's right and yet is not willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

For starters, he lives in a 20-room mansion. I guess it's possible that he wanted 30 rooms but decided to limit himself to 20 for the sake of the environment. Maybe he does pay extra for "green" energy, but by using so much electricity, he's not setting a very good example for those that can't afford to pay extra. He advocates the type of environmental policies that would be hard on the average person while himself not making much of a sacrifice.

There are many other sacrifices that Al Gore is not making.

Or at least not travel by jet. If global warming is such a huge doomsday disaster, sacrifices have to be made.

But it kind of matters what exactly the contribution is, and Gore's position seems to be that the debate on that is over. Yeah, maybe humans are contributing to temperature changes, but the sun could account for the vast majority of the change. It just seems a little odd to me that Mars is also warming despite the lack of burning fossil fuels there. I don't think we're allowed to debate this. Or because Gore's right about climate change, he's wrong to travel by jet. I've noticed on this board that hypocrisy on the right seems to invalidate their views.

OK, but what does that have to do with my posts? I am not arguing about environmental policies of Bush. Bush is obviously not the Nobel-prize-winning crusader (don't start a religious argument just because I used the word "crusader") for the environment. It's pretty easy to make policies that force others to be environmentally kosher (again, no religious argument) and even easier to make a slanted, inaccurate documentary advocating such policies, but apparently it's not so easy to limit your personal electricity usage to that of 10 other households. If that's only "mildly" hypocritical, I'd ha

So does anything the President orders count toward his carbon footprint? If a President signs a universal healthcare bill, he's responsible for all the electricity consumed in every hospital in the U.S.? Maybe Gore pays a little extra for his electricity so he can sleep at night, but he's gaining far more in wealth and fame for advocating environmentalism than he loses in his half-assed attempt to live "greenly." Sure he's buying renewable electricity, but he's not really making much of a sacrifice. If he really believes we're headed for a global catastrophe (a la "The Day After Tomorrow"), th

Well, technically, it would be the military that's polluting in the "phony" war, and not Bush. And whether you agree or disagree with the war, it's not like it's Bush's personal war. It's supposedly being waged on behalf of the nation. I've never been invited to stay in Al's mansion. I guess I should cut Gore some slack, though. It's really tough to limit your electricity usage to only 5-10 times that of the normal person. Gore's really making some sacrifices in his effort to stop global warming.

Or that.

Bush is only the world's second biggest polluter. Al Gore has him beat on that.

Happy Birthday, Chompsky, etc! And stop changing screennames!

Happy Birthday!

These are now up on buyearlygetnow.com.

My parents tell me this story from when I was too young to remember: Back when we lived in Florida, my grandparents were visiting us, and we were eating at an Italian restaurant. My little brother was probably 2 or 3 and at the time wasn't a very adventurous eater, so he tried to order a hamburger. When the waitress informed him that they didn't have hamburgers, his reaction was to say "Aww, shit!" very loudly. Apparently, the waitress had to cover her face with a menu to hide her reaction.

I thought we were done with the innuendos.

No. Except it's not "collateral damage" with abortions. Those that are killed in abortions are not merely accidental deaths as a result of the means used to achieve some other ends -- their deaths are the ends.

Oh well, I didn't realize partial birth abortions were rare. That fact makes them less gruesome. And before the partial birth abortion ban was passed, the law did not say that they could only be performed if the mother's health or fetus' (i.e. premature baby in this case) viability were in question. And are you OK with civilian casualties as long as the war was waged under true pretenses?

I agree that it's night and day, but I'm guessing we disagree on which is which. And just out of curiosity, why are you outraged at a baby inadvertently killed in a bombing campaign but not one intentionally killed by a partial birth abortion?

Now they've resorted to making movies based on Taco Bell commercials.

Exactly. So I say, vote for Barr.

Is that some sort of euphemism?