<p>I understand the thread is primarily environmental. Just couldn’t resist the comparison of hypocrisies. On other threads I never saw neocon posters go after the Bush/Cheney gang with the same lip-smacking zeal as they have with Gore. … The Gore thing is not particularly new. At least the attacks on his so-called phony environmentalism have been going on for years, ever since he wrote “Earth in the Balance.” The success of “An Inconvenient Truth” really set things off again.</p>
<p>Cheney was a married father during the draft. Bush served in the National Guard. I find it interesting that the respect that people hold for the Guard NOW, is somehow missing regarding Bush’s service.</p>
<p>Actually, I must correct myself, Zoosermom. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, it had nothing to do with environmentalism. That was just a turn it took somewhere along the way, as so many of these threads do.</p>
<p>“On other threads I never saw neocon posters go after the Bush/Cheney gang with the same lip-smacking zeal as they have with Gore. … The Gore thing is not particularly new. At least the attacks on his so-called phony environmentalism have been going on for years, ever since he wrote “Earth in the Balance.” The success of “An Inconvenient Truth” really set things off again”</p>
<p>How many neocons do you know? There aren’t many here on this forum, if any at all. Conservatives, on the other hand . . .</p>
<p>The newness of the Gore situation is his electric bill and the fact that he is just now getting around to solar panels. Heck, I know conservatives (my parents) who have had solar panels for years and years.</p>
<p>"Actually, I must correct myself, Zoosermom. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, it had nothing to do with environmentalism. "</p>
<p>You asked why the military issue wasn’t addressed and I said that posters wanted to stay with the environmental issue. Which is the case. Just a matter of preference. Seems that in this particular thread posters on both sides are more interested in the environment. Posting something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to pique someone else’s interest.</p>
<p>sjmom–There are plenty of married fathers (and mothers) serving honorably in Iraq these days. What irritates me about Cheney is that he’s such a big war guy now, but used whatever means suited him to get out of service during Vietnam. His lame “I had other priorities” excuse came across to me as arrogant and pathetic. I’m sure that many of the young moms, dads, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters serving and dying in Iraq also have/had “other priorities.” Like living to see another day. … As for Bush and his “honorable” National Guard service. Just as some of you folks are convinced that Gore is a total hypocrite, others of us are convinced that Bush was a snivelling AWOL daddy’s boy who couldn’t even be depended upon to keep the airspace over Texas safe during a time of war. … I have a better idea, sjmom! Let’s talk about Jane Austen! Maybe I’ll meet you again on the “What have you read lately” thread!</p>
<p>Zoosermom–As I said, this did not start off as an environmental thread. It has meandered all over the map and has, of late, landed on the topic of environmentalism. Or Gore-bashing, to be more precise. … As for Gore’s recent discovery of solar panels–I’m dismayed it took him so long. I’m not blindly in love with liberal politicians who I feel have done wrong. Such as all those weak-kneed, cowardly Democrats who voted to support Bush’s war. Sorry, I’m going off on another tangent.</p>
<p>Hindoo, the married fathers and mothers serving in Iraq are doing so voluntarily.</p>
<p>As far as your tangent, the bottom line is that this is a free forum and people aren’t interested in chatting you about that at this particular moment.</p>
<p>Hindoo,
Based on your definition of hypocritical behavior, the biggest hypocrite of all was FDR. He did not serve in WW I yet presided over WW II. And, before you use the polio as an excuse, note that he was not stricken with the disease until after WW I was over. Also, will your definition of hypocrite also apply to Presidents Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or Barack Obama should they ever deem it necessary to commit troops to war? Does it also apply to Bill Clinton who didn’t even serve in the national guard but yet committed American forces to war without even a Congressional mandate?</p>
<p>“motivation for carbon credits etc. is just another way to redistribute wealth from affluent economies, like the US, to third world economies”</p>
<p>Aren’t we able to do this already without even dealing with carbon isssues? Haven’t we done enough to create an underclass by shipping jobs and dollars overseas so that 1 in 6 americans require some sort of public assistance?
We don’t need carbon emission controls to reduce jobs in amercia, we do just fine right now.</p>
<p>Again this is a silly arguement about Gore. Especially from you conservatives… </p>
<p>As you look closer you’ll find he is attempting to use more green power, and so is GW. Do we need to see what GW’s ranch uses in power consumption? Should Bush live in a smaller place? Maybe Bush should give up all that ranch land for the homeless? GEE aren’t those good ideas? 
Maybe you guys support everyone living in an “average” american home? Gee, the conservatives push us closer to socialism every day. ;)</p>
<p>Until we know the average per sq ft consumption in the region, we don’t really know if he’s wasting or saving energy. And please understand there are energy sources that are green and those that are not. </p>
<p>So to complain without KNOWING the breakdown is sheepish behavor. And hey, I haven’t liked him or Tipper since the record BS. As I said there are legitimate reasons to dislike the guy and then there’s this. </p>
<p>But that’s really not the point is it? His documentary grabbed an oscar. Gee now he’s a possible presidential canadate… let’s smear him! With or without the smear, he won’t be in a month, so why bother? </p>
<p>Why would Gore want to come back to this BS anyway?</p>
<p>nice pun, couldn’t get an appointment here?</p>
<p>These days Stewart Brand endorses nuclear energy. Regrets alarmist views held in the past- overpopulation, genetic manipulation of food/plants, take-over of humans by our intolerant computers- which bred a romantic distrust in the benefits that come from science. Doesn’t mind having been wrong. Enjoys it, even.</p>
<p>"As you look closer you’ll find he is attempting to use more green power, and so is GW. Do we need to see what GW’s ranch uses in power consumption? "</p>
<p>He’s been talking about the environment for years, so why is Mr. Gore just now doing something about it, and why is he paying for exchanges, rather than reducing his consumption? On one level, that is a rich person paying for something a poor person can’t (which is fine with me, by the way, but I’m not a liberal who worries about fairness in that way), and on another level, he’s balancing out his consumption, but why not reduce it? I don’t care where he lives or what he consumes, but he has certainly lost his moral authority here, and that may or may not be a shame. At the very least, someone who has made this his platform should be doing more, not less, than everyone else.</p>
<p>
This logic is akin to saying “until we know what the average fuel consumption of a Humvee is, we don’t know if a particular Humvee driver is wasting or saving energy”. The point is the choice of house or vehicle, not its relative consumption of energy when compared with like items.</p>
<p>FF, you don’t really think there is anything wrong with people driving Humvees now, do you? ;)</p>
<p>“but I’m not a liberal who worries about fairness in that way)”</p>
<p>Really? No… I kid. ;)</p>
<p>“, and on another level, he’s balancing out his consumption, but why not reduce it?”</p>
<p>That’s my point, nothing in the complaining article allows us to see if AG is reducing? I would say moving towards green IS reducing.</p>
<p>" I don’t care where he lives or what he consumes, but he has certainly lost his moral authority here, and that may or may not be a shame."</p>
<p>Is the loss of his “moral authority” due to a hit piece? Until we can compare, shouldn’t he be spared judgement on this issue? I don’t think anywhere he’s said we should all live in smaller homes? If he did and we compared that to a 20 room home, we could say wait a minute! If he says work towards going green in your daily life and he doesn’t, then we could complain. However, it appears both he and gw are working towards going green. Is he green enough? I don’t think anyone is “green enough”. However, I do credit both he and gw for working in that direction. What I would like to see gw do is help the rest of us work towards “green”. He’s in a position NOW to do something. </p>
<p>" At the very least, someone who has made this his platform should be doing more, not less, than everyone else."</p>
<p>Again, from reading this article he has. He is working towards green. I dislike the fake outrage the article tosses out… What’s the average per sq ft energy costs in his region and how does that compare per sq ft with his home and likewise the cost of consumption for a pool per gallon of water. Think unit cost at the grocery store. The small can of peas is cheaper than the big can…SO the small can is a better buy. Until you read the cost per ounce…
I mean really Costco shouldn’t exist in your folks minds. I mean five heads of romaine lettuce for 2.99 when a single head ONLY costs a $1… </p>
<p>[zoos it ain’t a personal attack just a general point]</p>
<p>Al Gore’s “gluteal fatprint”</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2501[/url]”>http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2501</a></p>
<p>“This logic is akin to saying “until we know what the average fuel consumption of a Humvee is, we don’t know if a particular Humvee driver is wasting or saving energy”. The point is the choice of house or vehicle, not its relative consumption of energy when compared with like items.”</p>
<p>What if he’s using biodesil??? </p>
<p>FF you usually do better than this, are you tired today? </p>
<p>Initially I asked is this normal or excessive consumption for a 20 room home? More apples to apples. </p>
<p>You suddenly coming out against personal property? eh tu comrade?</p>
<p>" also live a fat-neutral lifestyle"</p>
<p>and HOW MUCH DO YOU WEIGH TODAY? ;)</p>
<p>If this whole global-warming/jet-set thing doesn’t work out for the former veep and current celeb, I suggest he grow back that ‘man-before-time’ beard and see if he can’t pick up a new gig in a Geico commericial…hell, from what I understand, even a cave man could do it.</p>
<p>Hollywood! baby.</p>