Al Gore is at it again??????

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Scott J:
That is true MP unless we find more hydroelectric, solar, or wind resources. I wonder if we could actually erect enough windmills to effect the global climate? Could we build enough solar panels to change the global temperature?

There is some cool new cement technology that addresses heat absorption and reflection and the release of carbon dioxide.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Clinton signed numerous executive orders and some concerning the environment... to take effect after he left office. He didn't want to disturb the economy on his watch but owed some debts. It was a political ploy to make Bush look bad for reversing policies supposedly intended to help the environment.

Yea, right!

Are you the same person who complains about Poncho and his conspiracy theories?

 

[saturneptune]

I love it, Republican apologists.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Originally posted by Scott J:
That is true MP unless we find more hydroelectric, solar, or wind resources. I wonder if we could actually erect enough windmills to effect the global climate? Could we build enough solar panels to change the global temperature?

No, wouldn't work as it would obstruct some environmental wackos view...

Like Chappaquidik Ed's

SMM

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
That is true MP unless we find more hydroelectric, solar, or wind resources. I wonder if we could actually erect enough windmills to effect the global climate? Could we build enough solar panels to change the global temperature?

No, wouldn't work as it would obstruct some environmental wackos view...

Like Chappaquidik Ed's

SMM </font>[/QUOTE]Once again, SMM, you choose to make inane statements rather than use facts. Do you have evidence that Sen. Kennedy would not be in favor of enviromentally-sound energy sources if it obstructed his view? If so, link please. If not, your statement is just a way to interject a slander into the discussion that has no bearing on the subject at hand.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Try this Google Search:

Kennedy blocks wind power

http://www.google.com/search?q=Kennedy+blocks+wind+power

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...ors_bid_to_block_wind_farm_linked_to_kennedy/

Romney and Kennedy -- whose family compound would be within sight of the proposed wind-power facility in Nantucket Sound -- are strong opponents of the 130-turbine project.

SMM

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Chappaquiddik Teddy doesn't like looking at wind farms

SMM, you da man.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

SMM, I read a few of the links from your Google search, and I found no indication it is about his view. Yes, it could be, and it would not surprise me if true, however he has cited other issues in the article Curtis linked to:

Kennedy rejected suggestions that he doesn't like the wind farm because it would be near his Cape home, and said the project probably wouldn't be visible from the Kennedy compound. He said he's against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area's key industries.

You never know what another person really thinks, but so far I find nothing to sustain your accusation. If you can point to one, fine. Otherwise, I say you still have not given proof.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Also, if you do find such a link, it is wise to include it in your initial post, so that you don't appear to be making baseless assertions.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Double post glitch. Sorry

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Clinton signed numerous executive orders and some concerning the environment... to take effect after he left office. He didn't want to disturb the economy on his watch but owed some debts. It was a political ploy to make Bush look bad for reversing policies supposedly intended to help the environment.

Yea, right!

Are you the same person who complains about Poncho and his conspiracy theories?

</font>[/QUOTE][/quote][/qb]
Complain? No. Poncho can believe whatever non-sense he wants to believe in. I'll use the freedom of this forum that we both enjoy and respect to tell him when I think he is wrong.

The simple fact of that matter is that both parties do this and it isn't all that big of a secret. The GOP sets Democrats up to expose positions they think are vulnerable. Dems do the same. That's what Clinton did.

FTR, I think many of the Executive Orders would have been signed had Gore won. For one, Gore is an envirokook and would have done much worse on his own. Second, Clinton and the Dems would have had no interests in setting another Dem up to look bad... unless you are a real conspiracy theorist and think they'd have done it to Gore to help Hillary's chances of becoming Prez.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

MP...

There is *always* an excuse _NOT_ to practice or allow Evironmentally Friendly things in your own backyard...

And, people in power will always find them to protect their own backyards and force it into the little guys backyard...

It is easy to accuse the Republicans of such behavior.

Why, do you immediately go to the defense of a Democrat as if they could never possible act out of self-interest?

I think I see a pattern here?

SMM

 

[Magnetic Poles]

SMM, you are wrong indeed. I simply expect evidence to support your assertions. I would do the same if you made a claim like that against, oh, let's say Pat Buchannan.

So first of all, politicians will be politicians, we all know that, regardless of their party affiliation. I never said they will not act on self-interest. Remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Self actualization is a high motivator.

Secondly, I did say I would not be surprised if Sen. Kennedy did have self-interest in this, but you first made a statement without evidence. Then when asked for a link, your evidence fell short, and in fact, supported just the opposite.

You should know by now that baseless assertions will be challenged, and that weak evidence will be pointed out. Your first post on this may have assumed we all were familiar with the story about Cape Cod, but we weren't (or at least I wasn't). Secondly, not everyone came to your same conclusion.

 

[Scott J]

If the "effect" is the issue then the reason he gave may be worse than if his opposition was due to a personal inconvenience.

Here we have a "friend" of the environmental left who supports clean alternative energies (and spares no opportunity to cast stones at the GOP on the environment or energy) saying the local tourist economy is more important than clean renewable energy. IOW's, "someone needs to suffer... but not the people who might or might not vote to keep me in office."

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott J:

FTR, I think many of the Executive Orders would have been signed had Gore won.

Meant to say "would not have been signed". Sorry, wouldn't let me edit.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
MP...

There is *always* an excuse _NOT_ to practice or allow Evironmentally Friendly things in your own backyard...

And, people in power will always find them to protect their own backyards and force it into the little guys backyard...

It is easy to accuse the Republicans of such behavior.

Why, do you immediately go to the defense of a Democrat as if they could never possible act out of self-interest?

I read your article.

...Kennedy rejected suggestions that he doesn't like the wind farm because it would be near his Cape home, and said the project probably wouldn't be visible from the Kennedy compound. He said he's against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area's key industries.

The Cape Wind developers, he said, want to erect a sprawling, for-profit field of giant windmills on public, state-owned territory....

Ultimately, Kennedy said, Massachusetts and its governor should get to decide yes or no on the site for the farm, Kennedy said.

...

Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska, the senator who inserted the wind-farm provision into the Coast Guard bill, has acknowledged discussing the matter privately with the Massachusetts Democrat.

Rep. Ted Stevens of Alaska (beneficiary of the multi-million taxpayer funded "bridge to nowhere") is the one who stuck this fast-track sweetheart deal into a Coast Guard bill, if I am reading this correctly. This windmill farm is likely to wreck Cape Cod's main industry, tourism. Now, do you really think that provision is about environmentally sound energy or is it a Republican out to spite a Democrat while deceptively cloaking it in Green?

I think I see a pattern here?

Yeah, me too.

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Originally posted by Daisy:
jereome10, perhaps you don't understand how our government works - the Congress passes laws not the Executive branch.

Yes Daisy dear, but wasnt VP Gore in the Congress prior to becoming the savior of the planet, inventor of the internet, and rock n roll's enemy number one?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Also, if I am not mistaken, the VP casts the Tie Breaker Vote in the Senate

 

[Revmitchell]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
I believe that freon-based air conditioning is outlawed by federal mandate. Other refrigerants that are more eco-friendly are required.

As for motorcades, when he was VP, that is more of a security issue than anything else.

R-22 (freon) will be manufactured in Residential Air Conditioning as well as Commercial until 2010. R-22 will be available on the market until 2020 for repairs needed on existing R-22 units.

As of Jan this year the minimum seer(Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) rating that can be manufactured is 13 which is a step up from 10.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
Yes Daisy dear, but wasnt VP Gore in the Congress prior to becoming the savior of the planet, inventor of the internet, and rock n roll's enemy number one?

Ah sweet angel, if you knew your facts, you'd know that Gore said,"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." and that he actually did take the initiative in Congress.

Here’s what Internet guru Vinton Cerf told the Post’s John Schwartz:

SCHWARTZ: Vinton G. Cerf, a senior vice president at MCI Worldcom and the person most often called “the father of the Internet” for his part in designing the network’s common computer language, said in an e-mail interview yesterday, “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator.”

According to Schwartz, Katie Hafner, co-author of a history of the Internet, “agreed” with that assessment:

SCHWARTZ: Hafner said people have been haggling over the true beginnings of the network for decades. “...[T]here are so many people who did at least one pivotal thing in either creating the network, or encouraging the use of the network, or bringing the network to the public--and Gore was one of those people.”

William Greider wrote this, in a Rolling Stone profile published before the recent flap:

GREIDER: [Gore] held the first congressional hearings on industry’s casual disposal of toxic wastes and on global warming, and he was an early champion of the system we now call the Internet.

Chuck Raasch, of USA Today, quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Dave Farber, whom Schwartz described as “one of the early players in the Internet:”

RAASCH: Dave Farber, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told [The Commercial Appeal of Memphis], “Gore did not technically create the Internet, but without him there is a good chance it would not be where it is today.”

Link to Source

Enemy of rock 'n' roll? How so, by simply requiring labels? Are you saying that you oppose the labels?