Obama may be cool, but he has a problem. It isn't that he smoked cigarettes, it is that he is trying to quit smoking. Many people who try to quit are volatile or rageful. He could slip up and start a war.
If he is going to run he'd better make a commitment to smoking.
President 2008
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
oh
I suspect the Repubs will end up running Giuliani(sp?) with McCain.
McCain is too damn old to be President, but he's cool and has weight. The Repubs are too unpopular to run another fluffball like Bush right now. McCain will settle for the VP slot because Cheney has proven the VP can basically run things through the Cabinet.
Giuliani has a much better record than Bush for being in charge of things and working through bureaucracies. He isn't too-damn-old.
They've both already hosted Saturday Night Live, so more people think they are cool.
Al Gore hosted Saturday Night Live, but it wasn't very cool. I remember it wasn't very funny because I fell asleep.
McCain is too damn old to be President, but he's cool and has weight. The Repubs are too unpopular to run another fluffball like Bush right now. McCain will settle for the VP slot because Cheney has proven the VP can basically run things through the Cabinet.
Giuliani has a much better record than Bush for being in charge of things and working through bureaucracies. He isn't too-damn-old.
They've both already hosted Saturday Night Live, so more people think they are cool.
Al Gore hosted Saturday Night Live, but it wasn't very cool. I remember it wasn't very funny because I fell asleep.
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
Do you think that Gore's chances will be hurt by the fact that he spends more on electricity in his home than the average family - a lot more.
He is claiming that he is carbon neutral meaning that he invests in alternative energy sources to offset his carbon emmissions - but is that a copout that rich people can use and still use all the energy they want while asking us to conserve?
I know many people like him and feel that he was right about energy independence all along - but does this make him look a little hypocritical?
He is claiming that he is carbon neutral meaning that he invests in alternative energy sources to offset his carbon emmissions - but is that a copout that rich people can use and still use all the energy they want while asking us to conserve?
I know many people like him and feel that he was right about energy independence all along - but does this make him look a little hypocritical?
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
David Scott
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Al Gore's energy costs is higher then the average because he is purchasing his energy thru Green Power Switch at a higher rate then normal channels. Also, he shouldn't be criticized for purchasing carbon credits since he is taking the money that he has and using it to be carbon neutral.
what happens to a dream deferred .......
maybe it just sags like a heavy load
or does it explode ?
- Langston Hughes
maybe it just sags like a heavy load
or does it explode ?
- Langston Hughes
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Do carbon offsets equal an actual reduction of our personal impact on the planet?
If you throw enough money at a good cause (like planting trees) does that mean that you can still live your life with no thought?
Prince Charles caught some flak because he wanted to fly on a private jet and then decided that the PR was so bad that he'd better take a commercial flight. Well, ok, that was one time. Is he going to make that a permanent habit?
What about Al Gore?
Are these carbon offsets the new version of indulgences?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm (definition of indulgence).
Lynn asks about Gore's use of electricity in his home, but aren't there at least three homes?
What about flying around the world to talk about his film on emissions?
How many trees can you plant to offset the jet fuel emissions and how exactly do you offset all the oil used? Are Gore's inspirational qualities an offset on their own?
I'm glad Gore's buying trees (etc.), but I have a really difficult time understanding carbon offset credits.
If you throw enough money at a good cause (like planting trees) does that mean that you can still live your life with no thought?
Prince Charles caught some flak because he wanted to fly on a private jet and then decided that the PR was so bad that he'd better take a commercial flight. Well, ok, that was one time. Is he going to make that a permanent habit?
What about Al Gore?
Are these carbon offsets the new version of indulgences?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm (definition of indulgence).
Lynn asks about Gore's use of electricity in his home, but aren't there at least three homes?
What about flying around the world to talk about his film on emissions?
How many trees can you plant to offset the jet fuel emissions and how exactly do you offset all the oil used? Are Gore's inspirational qualities an offset on their own?
I'm glad Gore's buying trees (etc.), but I have a really difficult time understanding carbon offset credits.
-
ryan costa
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
it is ok
It is ok for Al Gore to use more electricity, because he is rich, and he is paying for it. So long as it isn't to run lamps for growing dope, that is ok.
For example, Lakewood High School probably uses much more electricity per student than most of the best high schools in Ghana. That is ok, because our society is rich and can afford it.
For example, Lakewood High School probably uses much more electricity per student than most of the best high schools in Ghana. That is ok, because our society is rich and can afford it.
-
Tim Liston
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm
I'm with you DL. Check out this article from today's USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-03-02-offsets-usat_x.htm
I just don't see how you can mitigate 2,000 pounds of carbon emissions for $5, $10 or $15 dollars.
Perhaps there is a dollar amount that can be invested in trees or wind power that makes up for carbon emissions. But there's no dollar amount that makes up for the fact that once you burn the oil (or natural gas) it's gone forever. After paying for carbon offsets, Al Gore may not be contributing to airborne emissions, but he is contributing to the permanent depletion of fossil fuel.
The way you feel about offsets, I feel about hybrid cars. Sure they are significantly more fuel efficient, but the fact is, that gain in fuel efficiency mostly just enables people to drive more miles. It helps people continue to live far from their jobs, shopping, and entertainment. Hybrids really don't help conserve oil. Cap-and-trade, carbon offsets, hybrids and all that, none really address the need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we consume.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-03-02-offsets-usat_x.htm
I just don't see how you can mitigate 2,000 pounds of carbon emissions for $5, $10 or $15 dollars.
Perhaps there is a dollar amount that can be invested in trees or wind power that makes up for carbon emissions. But there's no dollar amount that makes up for the fact that once you burn the oil (or natural gas) it's gone forever. After paying for carbon offsets, Al Gore may not be contributing to airborne emissions, but he is contributing to the permanent depletion of fossil fuel.
The way you feel about offsets, I feel about hybrid cars. Sure they are significantly more fuel efficient, but the fact is, that gain in fuel efficiency mostly just enables people to drive more miles. It helps people continue to live far from their jobs, shopping, and entertainment. Hybrids really don't help conserve oil. Cap-and-trade, carbon offsets, hybrids and all that, none really address the need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we consume.
-
Ivor Karabatkovic
- Posts: 845
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:45 am
- Contact:
The thing I don't understand is that people don't know that the "gas" emission from livestock...especially cows...is TWENTY times greater than all human emissions (cars, factories, etc) and is doing more damage than us humans are.
so before you go vegetarian, think of the harm you're doing to the environment.
so before you go vegetarian, think of the harm you're doing to the environment.
"Hey Kiddo....this topic is much more important than your football photos, so deal with it." - Mike Deneen
-
David Scott
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
It seems like your missing the message by attacking the messanger. The original charge against Al Gore was posted on the Druge Report and calculated his exact energy usage, but never mentioned the carbon credits. The Gore's have a 20 room mansion which is going to use more energy then an average house. They have installed solar panels, compact flourescent bulbs and other energy efficient devices but very few people can live completely off the grid (aside - Melissa Etheridge does live off the grid). So to offset his energy compsumption he purchases carbon credit to achieve carbon neutrality. Would it be better if he didn't purchase the credits ? I don't get the attack on him for trying to make a difference.
Also, he is going to travel and becase of security issues and convenience he is going to take private jets. I would love to see all private jets banned and force everyone to fly commercial - but it is not going to happen.
Now getting back to the topic - the fact that some can afford to fly private jets, own multiple houses, ride in limos et. al. while others take public transportaion and live in rentals point to the real problem we have. John Edwards is the only candidate discussing poverty.
Also, he is going to travel and becase of security issues and convenience he is going to take private jets. I would love to see all private jets banned and force everyone to fly commercial - but it is not going to happen.
Now getting back to the topic - the fact that some can afford to fly private jets, own multiple houses, ride in limos et. al. while others take public transportaion and live in rentals point to the real problem we have. John Edwards is the only candidate discussing poverty.
what happens to a dream deferred .......
maybe it just sags like a heavy load
or does it explode ?
- Langston Hughes
maybe it just sags like a heavy load
or does it explode ?
- Langston Hughes
-
DougHuntingdon
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:29 pm
><><><><><The thing I don't understand is that people don't know that the "gas" emission from livestock...especially cows...is TWENTY times greater than all human emissions (cars, factories, etc) and is doing more damage than us humans are.
so before you go vegetarian, think of the harm you're doing to the environment.
><><><>><
Ivor,
good point, but the global warming extremists don't like the facts to get in the way of a good story.
The fact is that there is A LOT OF MONEY $$$ for pro global warming folks. A good tactic when analyzing any issue is to follow the money (this can apply to both sides of an issue, of course).
Here is a good link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... c37ec39adf
As far as Al Gore, I don't know how any environmentalist can support him. He used 10,000 gallons or some other insane amount of jet fuel to fly to one conference. Then again, I think most "environmentalists" don't care much about the environment, especially if they may be inconvenienced. I see people wearing "Earth First" or other such apparel getting out of their cars at the store or wherever, but I do not see them on RTA.
Doug
so before you go vegetarian, think of the harm you're doing to the environment.
><><><>><
Ivor,
good point, but the global warming extremists don't like the facts to get in the way of a good story.
The fact is that there is A LOT OF MONEY $$$ for pro global warming folks. A good tactic when analyzing any issue is to follow the money (this can apply to both sides of an issue, of course).
Here is a good link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... c37ec39adf
As far as Al Gore, I don't know how any environmentalist can support him. He used 10,000 gallons or some other insane amount of jet fuel to fly to one conference. Then again, I think most "environmentalists" don't care much about the environment, especially if they may be inconvenienced. I see people wearing "Earth First" or other such apparel getting out of their cars at the store or wherever, but I do not see them on RTA.
Doug