Al Gore’s) Venture capital firm set to reap rewards on swine flu

[EagleSmack]

What a turkey this guy is. A complete hypocrite. A person with one of the largest carbon footprints in the world. Heavily invested in enterprises that will profit.. he thinks.. from environmental and population collapse.

But what goes around, comes around, often to the front door of palatial estates.. when one least expects it.

No kidding. Although the bozo claims he is carbon neutral via carbon credits when in fact his carbon credits are stocks in a carbon credit company. He makes money of people who really buy useless carbon credits.

He also allows Zinc Mining on his land which is one of the most environmentally destructive kinds of mining around. However when he gets $500,000 in royalties for allowing the mining to continue it is A-OK and not so bad.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think conservatives just can’t stand the fact that Gore won the Nobel Prize. Al Gore is a huge success story.

Many Democrats think that he was robbed of the Presidency in 2000, by a Republican controlled Supreme Court. Gore had plenty of reasons to be bitter about.

However, his final concession speech was a classic example of good sportsmanship. He told Democrats to let bygones be bygones, cooperate with the new President (Bush) and Gore faded into the twilight.

But not for long. He came roaring back with ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and won the Nobel Prize. After nine years, Bush’s name is mud over most of USA, while Gore is universally liked and admired, both in USA and outside USA.

That is what rankles most conservatives, most Republicans. They would have much preferred that Gore faded into obscurity. They hate Gore almost as much as they hate Hillary.

Personally I think it was USA’s loss that Gore didn’t win in 2000. He did all right for himself, but USA and the worldly suffered as a result of Bush being the President. Of course it is difficult to predict how Gore would have governed, but he definitely would not have invaded Iraq. Also, he would not have enacted Bush’s budget breaking, deficit producing tax cuts for (mainly) the rich. He would have continued Clinton’s policies.

Anyway, Republicans just cannot stand the fact that Gore rebuilt his life after the defeat of 2000 and has come back stronger than ever. No doubt they wish they had seen the last of Gore in 2000. Sometimes I wish that instead of Obama, Hilary or Gore had become the President, just to give Republicans a heart attack.

So I can understand the bitterness, the resentment by conservatives. Their poster boy, Bush turned out to be a dud. The object of their hate, their ridicule, their scorn became admired all over the world.

But such is life.

 

[EagleSmack]

I think conservatives just can’t stand the fact that Gore won the Nobel Prize. Al Gore is a huge success story.

Oh yeah... we're so bitter about that. :roll:

He also won an Oscar! :lol:

Many Democrats think that he was robbed of the Presidency in 2000, by a Republican controlled Supreme Court. Gore had plenty of reasons to be bitter about.

Face it... he lost. No matter how they counted it. He was a sore loser.

However, his final concession speech was a classic example of good sportsmanship. He told Democrats to let bygones be bygones, cooperate with the new President (Bush) and Gore faded into the twilight.

To bad he never practiced what he preached.

But not for long. He came roaring back with ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and won the Nobel Prize. After nine years, Bush’s name is mud over most of USA, while Gore is universally liked and admired, both in USA and outside USA.

You obviously haven't been reading this thread and keeping up with current events. The guy is a joke and a hypocrit.

That is what rankles most conservatives, most Republicans. They would have much preferred that Gore faded into obscurity. They hate Gore almost as much as they hate Hillary.

Actually we love that he is the Poster Boy for Global Warming. The more he talks the more GW is exposed.

Anyway, Republicans just cannot stand the fact that Gore rebuilt his life after the defeat of 2000 and has come back stronger than ever. No doubt they wish they had seen the last of Gore in 2000. Sometimes I wish that instead of Obama, Hilary or Gore had become the President, just to give Republicans a heart attack.

I encourage Gore to go about the country and making a mockery of Global Warming and it's dwindling legions.

So I can understand the bitterness, the resentment by conservatives. Their poster boy, Bush turned out to be a dud. The object of their hate, their ridicule, their scorn became admired all over the world.

But such is life.

That DUD was a two term President and Gore has become the joke of Democrats. We like guys like Gore because he represents what Dems and Liberals really are. Wealthy Hypocrits. Just like the Kennedy's.

"We got our millions so to make us feel good about our private jets and mansions we will pound the middle class and make them give to the under class."

Gore is a joke.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You obviously haven't been reading this thread and keeping up with current events. The guy is a joke and a hypocrit.

EagleSmack, this thread means nothing. Probably most of them here think that Bush was the greatest President ever (well, close to greatest, Reagan, elder Bush, Nixon, Ford etc. were almost equally good) and think that Obama is the worst president ever (well, close to worst, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Roosevelt were equally bad).

This is a heavily conservative place, and is not representative of Canada or USA as a whole. I bet if we took a poll here, Harper (and Bush or McCain) would win by a huge majority, by a landslide.

What you are seeing here is the conservative (the right and the far right) perspective, nothing more.

 

[EagleSmack]

Well I don't think Bush was the greatest President ever and was happy to see him go.

But Gore IS a hypocrit.

Just because the Greenie Libs and Hollywood Elite drool over him doesn't mean he is well loved here in the US.

 

[coldstream]

I think Bush was a mediocre President. You shouldn't categorize all social conservatives as being in league with the Free Market, Globalized, American Imperial paradigm of today's world, which Al Gore was instrumental in implementing as Vice President.

The forces of classic economic liberalism have coopted the 'conservative movement' for a corporatist agenda propelled by pure greed. They care nothing of moral principle.

If Obama didn't fund embryonic stem cell reseach, and promote radical pro-abortion policies, and homosexual affirmation.. i'd think he had the potential to be a good President. But he unfortunately is beholden to the idols that are tearing apart America and the West.

But Al Gore is certifiable, he is psychotic.. delusional.. a complete nut case.. . I'd call him greatest liar of his age, but i think he far too confused to know the difference between truth and fiction. Not the type of person you want in charge of the world's most powerful economic and nuclear superpower.

The fact he receives these awards from the post structural pagans who control much of the West's supranational organizations, just shows how messed up things are.. and where we are headed. :-?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But Al Gore is certifiable, he is psychotic.. delusional.. a complete nut case.. . I'd call him greatest liar of his age, but I think he far too confused to know the difference between truth and fiction. Not the type of person you want in charge of the world's most powerful economic and nuclear superpower.

The fact he receives these awards from the post structural pagans who control much of the West's supranational organizations, just shows how messed up things are.. and where we are headed.

Coldstream, let us see now. Al Gore is certifiable, psychotic, delusional, nut case. So by implications, anybody who was involved in giving all these awards (Nobel Prize and other awards) are also certifiable, psychotic, delusional, nut case

And you are the one who is supposed to decide all that. You are the one who apparently has the authority to pronounce all these scientists, statesmen, politicians, prominent people in the society, apparently you have the authority to declare all of them psychotic, delusional etc.

Does that tell you anything about yourself?

 

[EagleSmack]

But Al Gore is certifiable, he is psychotic.. delusional.. a complete nut case.. . I'd call him greatest liar of his age, but i think he far too confused to know the difference between truth and fiction. Not the type of person you want in charge of the world's most powerful economic and nuclear superpower.

Yet smart enough to know that he would not stand a chance in debating Global Warming against his critics. That is why he has yet to sit down and have a debate with his opponents when it comes to Global Warming.

 

[captain morgan]

Gore may be alot of things, but stupid he is not. He is well aware that if he were to engage anyone in debate on this topic, his opportunity to profit from this would dry up very quickly.

I can only imagine that the decision delivered by the UK Supreme Court impacted his acceptance in Europe along with the corresponding carbon trading opportunities

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Gore may be alot of things, but stupid he is not. He is well aware that if he were to engage anyone in debate on this topic, his opportunity to profit from this would dry up very quickly.

I can only imagine that the decision delivered by the UK Supreme Court impacted his acceptance in Europe along with the corresponding carbon trading opportunities

There isn’t any UK Supreme Court, captain. Get your facts straight.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yet smart enough to know that he would not stand a chance in debating Global Warming against his critics. That is why he has yet to sit down and have a debate with his opponents when it comes to Global Warming.

EagelSmack, that is a standard technique to goad your opponent into a fight.

“You are not scared, are you? Yes, you are. Chicken, chicken!”

Gore is too seasoned a politician to fall for that kind of bait. As I said, a debate won’t settle a thing. Global warming supporters will claim Gore won, opponents will claim he lost.

I understand Obama administration will take action on global warming. Gore was an important witness to the committee. So things are happening. Time for the debate is long gone.

 

[EagleSmack]

EagelSmack, that is a standard technique to goad your opponent into a fight.

“You are not scared, are you? Yes, you are. Chicken, chicken!”

Gore is too seasoned a politician to fall for that kind of bait. As I said, a debate won’t settle a thing. Global warming supporters will claim Gore won, opponents will claim he lost.

I understand Obama administration will take action on global warming. Gore was an important witness to the committee. So things are happening. Time for the debate is long gone.

Then why did he debate when he ran for President... or when he was on Clinton's ticket? If it wasn't going settle a thing.

Gore has been in MANY debates. I would say we can call him a seasoned veteran when it comes to debating.

However... when it comes to Global Warming he will not debate. Why?

He will get schooled that is why. It is easy to talk Global Warming at Earth Day or at the Oscars. They are already a captured audience.

Gore IS indeed chicken to debate with a critic of Global Warming. He will lose. His handlers know it, he knows it.

 

[Ron in Regina]

What if, without a real Public debate, we find out in hindsight that
the whole Carbon Trading thing is a complete and utter sham, but
only after it costs 100's of billions of dollars? That's spooky...

There's a big difference between some action, and the right action.[/quote]

Gore is too seasoned a politician to fall for that kind of bait. As I said, a debate won’t settle a thing. Global warming supporters will claim Gore won, opponents will claim he lost.

I understand Obama administration will take action on global warming. Gore was an important witness to the committee. So things are happening. Time for the debate is long gone.

Spooky....

 

[EagleSmack]

I understand Obama administration will take action on global warming. Gore was an important witness to the committee. So things are happening. Time for the debate is long gone.

He was indeed. And the scientist that was scheduled to speak AGAINST Global Warming was told he would not be able to speak to the committee.

That's the Democrats/Liberals for you!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What if, without a real Public debate, we find out in hindsight that
the whole Carbon Trading thing is a complete and utter sham, but
only after it costs 100's of billions of dollars? That's spooky...

Ron, and how is public debate going to settle that? Public debate can settle matters of public policy (and many times not even that). Whether Carbon Trading is a sham or not is for scientists to decide. They have to tell us whether it will do anything to reduce greenhouse gases.

In a public debate, the two sides will simply present their case, and that would be that. Public place is not the proper forum to decide on matters of science (like Creationists want to teach Book of Genesis along with evolution, to them it is a matter of public policy, not one of science).

 

[captain morgan]

There isn’t any UK Supreme Court, captain. Get your facts straight.

• UK Supreme Court building transferred to Ministry of Justice
• Statement on repairing the new Supreme Court
• Appointment of the first chief executive of the Supreme Court
• Building works update 13 November 2007
• Supreme Court - new appointments process
• UK Supreme Court Chief Executive recruitment

Give these a try

 

[CDNBear]

• UK Supreme Court building transferred to Ministry of Justice
• Statement on repairing the new Supreme Court
• Appointment of the first chief executive of the Supreme Court
• Building works update 13 November 2007
• Supreme Court - new appointments process
• UK Supreme Court Chief Executive recruitment

Give these a try

Oh now you dun it!!! Now you'll be labeled the typical right wing caricature and ignored...:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

• UK Supreme Court building transferred to Ministry of Justice
• Statement on repairing the new Supreme Court
• Appointment of the first chief executive of the Supreme Court
• Building works update 13 November 2007
• Supreme Court - new appointments process
• UK Supreme Court Chief Executive recruitment

Give these a try

Indeed, Captain. Check out this from the first link you gave.

The introduction of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom will provide greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements by further separating the judiciary from the legislature.

This is a major milestone in the development of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. We remain on track to deliver a fully functioning Supreme Court in time for the opening of the legal year in October 2009.

What does this tell you? They are going to introduce Supreme Court to UK, they don’t have one at present.

Until now, the highest court in UK was in The House of Lords, called the Privy Council. It did not have any authority to overrule laws passed by the government. It could only interpret them and decide if they have been implemented properly.

This is what the UK Justice Department website says:

The UK Supreme Court will open in early October 2009.

United Kingdom Supreme Court - Ministry of Justice

So you jumped the gun just a little.

 

[Ron in Regina]

What if, without a real Public debate, we find out in hindsight that
the whole Carbon Trading thing is a complete and utter sham, but
only after it costs 100's of billions of dollars? That's spooky...

Ron, and how is public debate going to settle that? Public debate can settle matters of public policy (and many times not even that). Whether Carbon Trading is a sham or not is for scientists to decide. They have to tell us whether it will do anything to reduce greenhouse gases.

In a public debate, the two sides will simply present their case, and that would be that. Public place is not the proper forum to decide on matters of science (like Creationists want to teach Book of Genesis along with evolution, to them it is a matter of public policy, not one of science).

An educated Public, exposed to both sides of an issue that will affect them
in so many ways, when Public policy being thrust upon them as a result,
can decide whom they'll cast their votes for, assuming they're in a Democracy,
as to who will push what agenda.

One side of an argument getting huge publicity, and it's chief spokesperson
refusing to debate that issue with anyone....that just doesn't seem right to me.

The more I read about Global whatever it is at this point, the more I want to
hear a Public debate with BOTH sides of the issue represented so that I can
make an informed decision....for myself. I'm one of the 6&1/2 Billion that will
be affected. There isn't a consensus on Global Warming/Cooling/Change by
any means. That much is very evident, and there's much conflicting information
on both sides of the issue. I'd like that cleared up in an open debate.

I'm very capable of casting my own vote, once everything is out on the table,
for whatever Political Party makes the decision that most closely falls into the
position that most closely aligns itself to my own beliefs once all the facts are
on the table and openly debated.

 

[CDNBear]

An educated Public, exposed to both sides of an issue that will affect them
in so many ways, when Public policy being thrust upon them as a result,
can decide whom they'll cast their votes for, assuming they're in a Democracy,
as to who will push what agenda.

One side of an argument getting huge publicity, and it's chief spokesperson
refusing to debate that issue with anyone....that just doesn't seem right to me.

The more I read about Global whatever it is at this point, the more I want to
hear a Public debate with BOTH sides of the issue represented so that I can
make an informed decision....for myself. I'm one of the 6&1/2 Billion that will
be affected. There isn't a consensus on Global Warming/Cooling/Change by
any means. That much is very evident, and there's much conflicting information
on both sides of the issue. I'd like that cleared up in an open debate.

I'm very capable of casting my own vote, once everything is out on the table,
for whatever Political Party makes the decision that most closely falls into the
position that most closely aligns itself to my own beliefs once all the facts are
on the table and openly debated.

Excellent post Ron...