No no media girl. The point is do you except moral relitivisism from someone who is imoral? When someone participates in action that they later ridicule and blame others for, then they are a hipocrat. To be a owner of one of the largest petroleum organizations and act as if you are not part of the global warming problem is to be a hipocrate. If Al wanted too he could use his controlling shares of oxy to make a change in that companies direction. He could force them down the ethonal road he has that ability. But to continue to collect milloions in oil profits then lecture everyone on global warming, is the pot calling the kettle black. I dont want to discredit him because I dont believe in global warmming. I want to discredit him for making a profit on global warming and making people like you think he is a savior. I notice that once again you attack me attack what I said about Gore, yet you ignore his connections to big oil, more connections then georgy boy i might add. Maybe if you were to research back in the 1990's when Clinton released strategic oil reserves to help with north east heating oil supplies, what company do you think got the no bid contract to refill those reserves, I'll tell you, Oxy. To ignore this and to ignore his federal program whtch stole Native lands in california(Elk Hills), is to bury your head in the sand for pure political partisenship reasons. So once again I dont want to shoot the messenger, he has a good message, we must make changes soon. But is it to much to ask to have someone who hasn't corrupted the system for there own gain be the messenger? If we are to condem Chenny and Haliburton for there no bid contracts, then logic dictates we must condem Al gore for the same, unless your logic is so clouded that it only allows you to condemn those whome you already hate. I'll tell you what, I like Al Gore, but when he came to New Hamshire in 1999 and had a dryed lake flooded for a photo shoot,so his boat didnt get hung up in the shallow water, I lost all respect for him. If he truely was an environmentalist, worthy of respect, he would not have done this during the largest drought in that area's history. Perhaps this is information you already know, perhaps not. But considering you seem to be able to attack people while leaving out the majority of pertimnent information ie. a so called environmentalist who's millions come from leach mining, and petroleum production and sales, then it seems you are fighting for one side rather then promoting the truth. I find it interesting that when the president of the Sierra Club had fifty acres of his property clear cut, he was forced to resign. How can we listen to Gore tell us the evils of oil the evils of internal combustion, while he continues to make millions off of this evil. Once you commit a crime you automatically lose the right to judge others for commiting the same crime, unless your Al Gore. So do me a favor dont take this as an assult on Gore, take as an assult on any self proclaimed environmentalist, who doesnt practice what they preach. When you get hung up on partisenship, and become unable to condem somones action , then you lack the ability of thinking outside of the box. So since Al has done so many good things we cannot attack any of his bad decisions? That doesn't make any sense,yet niether does leaving out the crux of an argument. This has nothing to do with people of money offending other rich white elitists, this is about a hippocrate telling us how to save the world, yet he is unwilling to sever his own multimillion dollar connection to that environmental evil, oil. Maybe next time you should read the artical I posted for you and address the facts I laid out, anybody can ignore the facts and just participate in redoric and personal attack, based on hating the ultra rich. But when a person can actually speak on the facts of the matter and make acase for or against it, then they are truely rightous. In your case I think it's not rightousness, but self rightous indignation. Stop the the hate girl it's bad for everybody.
Drew
PS
Do me a favor if you can't speak on the points given, dont speak at all, to react to someones writings and only adress the points you can defend or none at all and ignore the rest, as you do, then you do them the same disrespect that you claim is being done by them. People can have apposing perceptions and both be correct, but when we promote hatered and seperatism among people then we all lose in the end,and thats what you don't get.
No no media girl. The point is do you except moral relitivisism from someone who is imoral? When someone participates in action that they later ridicule and blame others for, then they are a hipocrat. To be a owner of one of the largest petroleum organizations and act as if you are not part of the global warming problem is to be a hipocrate. If Al wanted too he could use his controlling shares of oxy to make a change in that companies direction. He could force them down the ethonal road he has that ability. But to continue to collect milloions in oil profits then lecture everyone on global warming, is the pot calling the kettle black. I dont want to discredit him because I dont believe in global warmming. I want to discredit him for making a profit on global warming and making people like you think he is a savior. I notice that once again you attack me attack what I said about Gore, yet you ignore his connections to big oil, more connections then georgy boy i might add. Maybe if you were to research back in the 1990's when Clinton released strategic oil reserves to help with north east heating oil supplies, what company do you think got the no bid contract to refill those reserves, I'll tell you, Oxy. To ignore this and to ignore his federal program whtch stole Native lands in california(Elk Hills), is to bury your head in the sand for pure political partisenship reasons. So once again I dont want to shoot the messenger, he has a good message, we must make changes soon. But is it to much to ask to have someone who hasn't corrupted the system for there own gain be the messenger? If we are to condem Chenny and Haliburton for there no bid contracts, then logic dictates we must condem Al gore for the same, unless your logic is so clouded that it only allows you to condemn those whome you already hate. I'll tell you what, I like Al Gore, but when he came to New Hamshire in 1999 and had a dryed lake flooded for a photo shoot,so his boat didnt get hung up in the shallow water, I lost all respect for him. If he truely was an environmentalist, worthy of respect, he would not have done this during the largest drought in that area's history. Perhaps this is information you already know, perhaps not. But considering you seem to be able to attack people while leaving out the majority of pertimnent information ie. a so called environmentalist who's millions come from leach mining, and petroleum production and sales, then it seems you are fighting for one side rather then promoting the truth. I find it interesting that when the president of the Sierra Club had fifty acres of his property clear cut, he was forced to resign. How can we listen to Gore tell us the evils of oil the evils of internal combustion, while he continues to make millions off of this evil. Once you commit a crime you automatically lose the right to judge others for commiting the same crime, unless your Al Gore. So do me a favor dont take this as an assult on Gore, take as an assult on any self proclaimed environmentalist, who doesnt practice what they preach. When you get hung up on partisenship, and become unable to condem somones action , then you lack the ability of thinking outside of the box. So since Al has done so many good things we cannot attack any of his bad decisions? That doesn't make any sense,yet niether does leaving out the crux of an argument. This has nothing to do with people of money offending other rich white elitists, this is about a hippocrate telling us how to save the world, yet he is unwilling to sever his own multimillion dollar connection to that environmental evil, oil. Maybe next time you should read the artical I posted for you and address the facts I laid out, anybody can ignore the facts and just participate in redoric and personal attack, based on hating the ultra rich. But when a person can actually speak on the facts of the matter and make acase for or against it, then they are truely rightous. In your case I think it's not rightousness, but self rightous indignation. Stop the the hate girl it's bad for everybody.
Drew
PS
Do me a favor if you can't speak on the points given, dont speak at all, to react to someones writings and only adress the points you can defend or none at all and ignore the rest, as you do, then you do them the same disrespect that you claim is being done by them. People can have apposing perceptions and both be correct, but when we promote hatered and seperatism among people then we all lose in the end,and thats what you don't get.