Al Gore getting loonier by the day

[Montgomery Burns]

Source: Canwest

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

Gore keeps on getting more loco. The guy even gives speeches for the radical Moveon.org (of Bush=Hiltler infamy) group.

It is scary to think of the downfall of the US (it surely would have happened), if Gore had been able to win his own state in 2000 and win the Presidency.

[tml12]

Source: Canwest

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

Gore keeps on getting more loco. The guy even gives speeches for the radical Moveon.org (of Bush=Hiltler infamy) group.

It is scary to think of the downfall of the US (it surely would have happened), if Gore had been able to win his own state in 2000 and win the Presidency.

I bet you he is calling Osama on the phone now to take him up on the "truce" he offered, something the far left in the States and here in Canada are just begging the Dems to do.

[shoop]

The beauty of it is if you compare Harper's 2006 platform to Gore's 2000 platform you would find Gore's to be far more *socially* conservative.

Ahhh hypocrisy you gotta love it.

[Hicksey]

Source: Canwest

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

Gore keeps on getting more loco. The guy even gives speeches for the radical Moveon.org (of Bush=Hiltler infamy) group.

It is scary to think of the downfall of the US (it surely would have happened), if Gore had been able to win his own state in 2000 and win the Presidency.

Gore thinks he invented the Internet. Need I say more?

[tml12]

Source: Canwest

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

Gore keeps on getting more loco. The guy even gives speeches for the radical Moveon.org (of Bush=Hiltler infamy) group.

It is scary to think of the downfall of the US (it surely would have happened), if Gore had been able to win his own state in 2000 and win the Presidency.

Gore thinks he invented the Internet. Need I say more?

He still *maintains* that position today...

[Hicksey]

Source: Canwest

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

Gore keeps on getting more loco. The guy even gives speeches for the radical Moveon.org (of Bush=Hiltler infamy) group.

It is scary to think of the downfall of the US (it surely would have happened), if Gore had been able to win his own state in 2000 and win the Presidency.

Gore thinks he invented the Internet. Need I say more?

He still *maintains* that position today...

Gore was loony from minute one. Now that the far left has taken over the party he no longer needs to look moderate and we're seeing more and more of his lunacy coming out.

[tml12]

Gore's family warned him to watch out for Clinton.

Clinton was interested in one person from day one: himself.

Gore suffered from Kim Campbell syndrome.

[Hicksey]

Gore's family warned him to watch out for Clinton.

Clinton was interested in one person from day one: himself.

Gore suffered from Kim Campbell syndrome.

Clinton never ran the country. It was a power struggle between pollsters and his wife.

Clinton was interested in plenty of people -- so long as they had a nice round behind, an ample bosom and were willing to screw an old man.

[Black Dog]

I hate to break up a good circle-jerk, but really, when whoppers like the old "Al Gore claims he invented the internet" continue to circulate, one must do something.

FYI: that claim is false.

Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign.

[Hicksey]

I hate to break up a good circle-jerk, but really, when whoppers like the old "Al Gore claims he invented the internet" continue to circulate, one must do something.

FYI: that claim is false.

Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign.

That's funny. That's like saying that by paying taxes and voting for the parties that made the decisions the rest of the country did the same.

He's claiming credit via the six degrees of separation argument.

[Black Dog]

As the Snopesters say:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

[BubberMiley]

It is scary to think of the downfall of the US (it surely would have happened), if Gore had been able to win his own state in 2000 and win the Presidency.

Yes, they might have reacted to the "Bin ladin determined to attack U.S." memo and avoided two wars, maintained the record surplus, acted towards improving the environment, not shredded their constitution, and had competent people in important positions rather than cronies so they could manage a crisis like Katrina. What planet are you on? Haven't you noticed the downfall of the U.S. has already happened?

[YankAbroad]

Actually, things wouldn't be much different today under a Gore administration than they were under a Bush administration.

The hilarious thing is that Republicrats and Demopublicans disagree with that simple fact.

[Riverwind]

Actually, things wouldn't be much different today under a Gore administration than they were under a Bush administration.

There would be no war in Iraq if Gore won - that is a huge difference.

[YankAbroad]

I'm not sure if I believe that either.

After all, virtually every Democrat in Congress voted for the thing.

[BubberMiley]

Based on bullsh*t the warmongering neocons were feeding them.

[Riverwind]

After all, virtually every Democrat in Congress voted for the thing.

Only because Bush wrapped himself in the American flag and called anyone who opposed his useless war a traitor to America. If Gore was in charge there never would have been any discussion of a war in Iraq since all of the evidence clearly showed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

[YankAbroad]

Yeah, I'm used to hearing all the excuses from Democrats who campaigned on "voting for the war before they voted against it."

If the Republicans are the evil incarnate which the Democrats argue they are, Democrats are arguably worse -- because they're an opposition party which supports the evil people who are running things.

I could give umptymillion examples, but suffice to say that as little credibility as the Republicans have with me (and I give them zero credibility), Democratic politicians have even less credibility. They're always providing excuses about how they "just couldn't" do what they wanted to do because of "pressure in swing states" or "Bush wrapping himself in the flag," etc. Democrat politicians will look voters and supporters in the eye, promise to oppose something the Republicans are doing, and then they end up supporting it and throwing out some half-assed excuse about how "we had to do this to avoid an acromonious wedge issue." Well what the heck do we need an opposition party for, then?

The state of the country would improve dramatically if the Democrats would just finish up their death throes, liquidate and allow a classical liberal opposition party ala the Libertarians to head up a principled opposition to the Republican big-spenders.

[tml12]

Yeah, I'm used to hearing all the excuses from Democrats who campaigned on "voting for the war before they voted against it."

If the Republicans are the evil incarnate which the Democrats argue they are, Democrats are arguably worse -- because they're an opposition party which supports the evil people who are running things.

I could give umptymillion examples, but suffice to say that as little credibility as the Republicans have with me (and I give them zero credibility), Democratic politicians have even less credibility. They're always providing excuses about how they "just couldn't" do what they wanted to do because of "pressure in swing states" or "Bush wrapping himself in the flag," etc. Democrat politicians will look voters and supporters in the eye, promise to oppose something the Republicans are doing, and then they end up supporting it and throwing out some half-assed excuse about how "we had to do this to avoid an acromonious wedge issue." Well what the heck do we need an opposition party for, then?

The state of the country would improve dramatically if the Democrats would just finish up their death throes, liquidate and allow a classical liberal opposition party ala the Libertarians to head up a principled opposition to the Republican big-spenders.

That is what happens when you have a "catch-all" party...either everything is caught or nothing.

[YankAbroad]

Well, the Democrats are dead, they just don't realize it yet.

They're going to be either completely remade, or supplanted. Part of the opportunity is coming up in the increasing anger from libertarian Republican supporters who are getting tired of the big spending, big government and social conservatism of the present administration.

[Hicksey]

After all, virtually every Democrat in Congress voted for the thing.

Only because Bush wrapped himself in the American flag and called anyone who opposed his useless war a traitor to America. If Gore was in charge there never would have been any discussion of a war in Iraq since all of the evidence clearly showed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

In fairness to both parties, they were all fooled by the intelligence just the same. While the democrats voted for it, they can at least say it wasn't their brainchild as well. Bush doesn't have that argument.

[Hicksey]

Based on bullsh*t the warmongering neocons were feeding them.

The whole world agreed on the intelligence before the war in Iraq. The disagreement was about what should have been done about it. It was clear that after 17 resolutions they had no intention of cooperating. But it also became clear that such an operation was going to cost many lives, much money and interrupt the world's oil supply. The primary 3 opponents, France, Russia and China all had stakes in not going to war in that they had huge oil contracts with SH and were also owed billions by Iraq.

Either way, we can argue the politics of it but the fact still remains: the WMDs are a no show and the costs of a near unilateral war has hurt the US economy greatly.

Had there not been conflicting interests with regard to the oil I believe the whole world would have invaded under the UN banner and been just as wrong about the WMDs. And had Bush been patient enough to wait for that time he wouldn't be biting this bullet alone.

[Canadian Patriot]

most nations governments are under the control of the U.N. or world bank like the united states.

[Hicksey]

most nations governments are under the control of the U.N. or world bank like the united states.

I think that's a little vague. I think that to say that most governments follow the will of the UN would be more accurate.

[Canadian Patriot]

No dude seriously The United states government has signed over 70% of it's no inhabited land as collateral through various acts and treaties with nations.

Official documents exist which detail plans for one world government under the U.N. not the U.S.

Do you not see the centralization of power it is absolutly frightning.